Bills

Statutes Amendment (COVID-19 Permanent Measures) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 March 2021.)

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (11:02): I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition in relation to the Statutes Amendment (COVID-19 Permanent Measures) Bill, which of course has come out of the COVID-19 legislation. However, it would make aspects of that legislation permanent in our law, applying not just to COVID-19 but to all future pandemics or emergencies where relevant provisions would apply. In that sense, it is not necessarily related to this current pandemic but is looking to the future.

This piece of legislation was debated in the community before it came to the parliament, and most notably it was hotly debated within the government's own party room, where we have leaked papers and leaked reports of the discussions from the government party room raising significant concerns about this legislation and its handling by the Attorney-General, the Deputy Premier, to the point where the government then changed their approach to this legislation because the party room was in open revolt and many members of the Liberal party room indicated that they would withhold their rights, in terms of potentially opposing this legislation or particular clauses of it, if they were to proceed.

After that happened, there was a backdown by the Attorney-General—a backdown that has seen this revised legislation brought to the parliament in a different form than was provided to her own party room. This is also a piece of legislation where we are still waiting for what has been long promised in regard to a permanent set of measures for dealing with the current pandemic. We have been dealing with a state of emergency in this state for in the order of, I believe, 14 months, and Grant Stevens, our police commissioner, has also been acting as the State Coordinator.

Let me put on the record again, as I have done many times, that the opposition has a huge amount of respect for the work the State Coordinator, Grant Stevens, has done in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. He has been ably assisted and advised in that role by the Chief Public Health Officer, Professor Nicola Spurrier. Both those office holders have huge respect and admiration from the people of South Australia for how they have managed, how they have made the difficult decisions in relation to handling the pandemic. They have done our state proud and they have put us in an enviable situation.

Of course, right around the country, we have done very well, and New Zealand has done very well. You only have to look at many other countries around the world to see the dangerous situation that they are in. Here in South Australia, our legislative model has been that it is not the Premier making the decisions, it is not the Deputy Premier making decisions and it is not the health minister making decisions: it has been the State Coordinator, Grant Stevens, making decisions, and he has done that very well.

I believe that prior to this pandemic the longest that anybody has used the Emergency Management Act in a major emergency declaration, or a state of emergency as it is colloquially called, is in the order of a couple of days, but we have now had this in place for 14 months.

I think the State Coordinator himself, Grant Stevens, has made clear on a number of occasions that he is looking forward to having a different set of arrangements in place, a different legislative process in place that would allow him to step back from that State Coordinator role to focus on his primary role, which is big enough as it is, in terms of being the police commissioner of the state, the Commissioner of Police, and allow all those important measures to proceed in a different form.

This has been his stated desire for many, many months. He has said it very clearly in press conferences and in interviews. However, for mysterious reasons, those suggestions and recommendations have either fallen on deaf ears, in terms of the Premier and the Attorney-General, or they have hit stumbling blocks when it has got to the Premier and the Attorney-General, because we have not seen them presented to this parliament. This legislation does definitely not address those issues, and this is highlighted by the fact that we just saw a piece of legislation pass this parliament that extended some of those powers of the Commissioner for Police for another three or six months, whatever the case was.

It is kicking the can down the road. We had a debate and questions and answers in this parliament, and the Attorney said she was considering more proposals from the Commissioner of Police, Grant Stevens, as the State Coordinator, in relation to what those measures would be. But, here we are, a few more weeks or maybe a month down the track, and we still have not seen what those permanent measures are going to be that the government is considering.

Let's be very clear: the pandemic is still around the world and it is still posing a significant threat to South Australia and Australia. This is highlighted yet again by the second leakage we have had now from our hotel quarantine medi-hotel program in South Australia. The first leakage, of course, happened from the Peppers hotel last year in November and caused a statewide lockdown to be put in place.

This leakage now from the Playford Hotel has, luckily for us, not impacted South Australia but is causing a significant effect in Victoria, where new restrictions have had to be put in place—with only five people allowed to be visitors at homes, masks to be worn indoors and restrictions on gatherings—because of that leakage from the South Australian hotel quarantine program at the Playford Hotel.

We are apparently told that there is a report. Yesterday, we were told it was finalised; today, it is apparently not finalised. We certainly have not had it released, but there is clearly an ongoing risk to South Australia. That is why there are very important powers that need to be in place for the medium term in South Australia in relation to how this pandemic is going to be managed. The police commissioner, as the State Coordinator, has made some of those very clear. He has made clear the importance of continuing QR codes and having that enforcement in place.

Currently, that is in place because of a direction by the State Coordinator, which of course has the effect of law but is therefore under the Emergency Management Act. The government has decided not to bring that before the parliament to debate and to pass through the parliament. It is keeping it under the Emergency Management Act—and, likewise, restrictions around borders, which often need to be put in place.

I think credit goes to the police commissioner and Professor Spurrier. I think we have a better system now in the drafting under the Emergency Management Act of those changes of borders where there are different levels that can be activated at different times, whereas prior to that there was a very complicated direction that needed to be read in full to understand all those border restrictions. Now there is a slightly clearer process in place.

This is an area where we need those powers to continue, but the government have made the decision that they are going to keep that drafting under the Emergency Management Act rather than bring it before the parliament and consider it as the law of the state in an ordinary function. They have also clearly decided not to go down the path of other potential models that would see some parts legislative or some parts referred to other bodies.

We have this body that has been in place for some time in South Australia, which is called the Transition Committee, that has no legal effect whatsoever. It is not a statutory body, it is not a body that is created under any legislation or regulation, to my knowledge, but it advises the State Coordinator in his legislative role in considering the directions and decisions that he would make by the various bureaucrats and public officers who sit on that committee. I think that process has served us well, but we are not seeing any of those measures made permanent.

I think it is worth noting that, despite the fact that the Premier announces those decisions from the Transition Committee a lot of the time, the Premier does not sit on that committee. No minister sits on that Transition Committee. In fact, I believe the evidence that we had to an upper house select committee was that the Premier had only been to the Transition Committee perhaps one time when he was presenting, I believe, on tourism opportunities or international student opportunities or the like. He is not part of the decision-making process.

This has led to a lot of commentary, and I believe some of the government's own backbenchers have been raising concerns as to whether this is a continuation where we are no longer having cabinet government in place, and how long is it going to be before cabinet government is back in place and back making decisions. I do not necessarily subscribe to that. That is the view that has been put around internally in the Liberal Party, and they certainly speak openly to us about their concerns in that regard, and by some of the more conservative media commentators as well.

Perhaps that is some of the reasoning why we have not seen over the past six months, since the police commissioner has been raising his concerns in relation to continuation of the legal framework that we are operating under, additional proposals brought to this parliament to address that. We just continue to see extensions and now some of these measures made permanent. This is not a new model, it is a continuation of what we have seen so far.

As I said, this bill makes permanent various temporary measures that were included in earlier COVID-19 emergency legislation. Under this bill, these changes will become an ongoing part of our laws regardless of whether an emergency is declared or not, which is an important point. Clearly, some of these provisions in relation to the Emergency Management Act or the Public Health Act apply in relation to particular emergencies, but there are some that apply even if there are no emergencies declared at all.

Those changes include allowing various meetings and mental health inspections by audiovisual means, paying container deposit refunds electronically and reducing administrative processes for executing mortgages. The latter two I have not heard any concerns raised about, although I do have a number of questions with regard to why we are proceeding so stridently with the first of those in relation to mental health and other inspections that would be done by community visitors or the Chief Psychiatrist, which traditionally have always been done in person.

When we entered lockdown in March or April last year, there was, I believe, a very compelling argument put to the parliament that we needed to allow these sorts of inspections to happen by audiovisual means during the pandemic because of the transmission risk to people who live in those facilities by inspectors coming in and out, and that we needed to allow a process by which the inspections could still take place, despite the global pandemic and community transmission underway.

What the government are now proposing to do is, in a time in the future when there would be no pandemic—the pandemic would be over and there would be no declarations—they want this permanent so that there would forevermore be the ability for the Chief Psychiatrist or community visitors to conduct their inspections by phone, Skype, Microsoft Teams or FaceTime.

I have some serious questions as to whether that is an appropriate approach, particularly when we know the risks that people who live in some of these facilities face, the importance of making sure those facilities are inspected, the importance of making sure their voices are heard, and the power imbalance that clearly exists, which is why inspections are needed in the first place.

To think that you could have an appropriate inspection of those facilities by phone or by Skype, presumably with the operator of those facilities deciding where they point the camera, I really question whether that is an appropriate decision for the future, or that we would want to continue to allow that to happen in all circumstances into the future.

There are also amendments to the public health laws to allow directions by various means, to extend the time for giving written notice of directions, and authorising the disclosure of information for medical research or statistical purposes. It is worth noting that the first piece of legislation we changed in relation to the pandemic was the Public Health Act, to enable appropriate decisions and protections to be put in place for the managing of the pandemic.

I believe it was in the order of only a week or two weeks that we had an emergency declared under the Public Health Act before the police commissioner decided to order an emergency declaration under the Emergency Management Act. There was some early use of the Public Health Act, but we have not seen it used significantly throughout the pandemic and certainly not over the last 14 months.

However, the government has made some changes. We passed the first changes in a very swift fashion—I believe within the space of an afternoon through both houses, which is very speedy—given their importance and the fact that the opposition was very keen, as we have been throughout the pandemic, to support all measures to give the government the powers it needs to appropriately manage the pandemic.

Now we are talking about after the COVID-19 pandemic for future pandemic or emergency public health management. I do think there are questions with regard to the powers of detention, which are very serious powers. Giving notice within 48 hours was the rule. We are now proposing to change that to giving notice within 72 hours.

We would like to hear from the government what the rationale behind that further extension would be, particularly where we have people in detention and we clearly would know where they are. Why we would not be able to give them notice within 48 hours, which would be a reasonable period of time for a significant detention order? Bear in mind that this is in relation to future pandemics down the track or future public health emergencies of any kind down the track.

The bill also amends the Emergency Management Act 2004 regarding identity cards, confidentiality of information and expiations for breaching directions. As I mentioned, there were going to be some further changes to that that were proposed by the Attorney-General, but she was rolled by her party room and they have been taken out of the legislation. The bill goes beyond the existing COVID-19 laws with regard to government immunity from liability. Previous COVID-19 emergency legislation provided immunity for any government actions taken in response to COVID-19 under the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act.

This bill provides immunity for any government actions taken under the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, the Emergency Management Act and the Public Health Act in addition to any law prescribed in regulation. Importantly, the current bill also makes the immunity retrospective. This creates an unusual situation where a minister can make regulations in a year or a decade from now that would indemnify the government against liability for actions taken under laws that do not even exist today as long as the actions are somehow linked to COVID-19.

When asked about what actions have been taken that could give rise to such claims, the government did not provide details. Whilst the opposition was supporting this bill through this chamber, as it has through all of the COVID-19 legislation, any such regulations brought before the parliament will be the subject of significant scrutiny. I think it will be important to hear from the Attorney in the debate on this legislation why those additional immunities are needed.

That first immunity protection was passed in very hurried fashion to enable the government to have all the powers that it deemed appropriate. We are now talking about some very long-term immunity protections in a much broader sense without that urgent need to pass this legislation, as can be evidenced by the fact that the government has had this sitting on the table for weeks now without debating it. So I think it would be prudent to hear from the Attorney as to the details behind that.

It is interesting that what is missing from this legislation is perhaps the most telling. This bill does not extend the current end date for temporary COVID-19 measures beyond 31 May; that was the subject of another bill, as I said earlier. This bill does not make permanent the additional powers of the State Coordinator during declared emergencies under section 25 of the Emergency Management Act 2004. Despite the bill title including 'Permanent Measures', it does nothing to reform how key decisions are made in the current COVID-19 pandemic or future emergencies.

As I said, we are still waiting. It has been six months since that was floated as something that the government, the Premier and the Deputy Premier were looking at. Clearly, there are issues internally in the government as to working out exactly what path they are going down because six months is a very long time to be considering that. The government allegedly have been trying to move ahead with more substantive changes. We even saw a draft bill that was leaked to the media before the Attorney-General was rolled by her own party. In November last year, the State Coordinator was quoted as saying:

We are providing advice to the Premier in relation to options for stepping away from the emergency management arrangements.

That was in November last year. We are now at the end of May. Some six months down the track, that advice has been sitting with the Premier, yet no bill has been brought to this parliament to consider how those arrangements could be permanently put in place, which is particularly odd. There has been no detail released and there has been no consultation on what those arrangements might be. We are still waiting.

We had some vague promises last sitting week from the Attorney or perhaps even the sitting week before. It might have been a month now that we have been hearing about potential changes. But still no detail has come out. Then on 4 January this year, some five months ago, InDaily reported, 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 his 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.

Before the Parafield cluster, which was in the middle of November, from memory, the government was already looking at how to put in place a so-called return to cabinet decision-making in government, but we are still six months down the track and no decisions have been made. There is nothing on the table to make substantive changes. While the opposition has been supporting the government's legislative agenda at every stage through this pandemic, the Liberal Party has not even been giving itself support during this.

The bill gives no reprieve to the State Coordinator, who has worked in those very two substantial jobs for more than a year now. There is no clear plan for what should happen in the next stage of this pandemic or the next major crisis we face. There is no proposal for how the government can deal with borders and directions, other than continuing with the State Coordinator being in control under the Emergency Management Act. There is nothing about elected officials having a role in the process because currently the only role of the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the health minister is that of appearing at press conferences. They do not have any decision-making roles in relation to any of these directions at all.

It is worth looking at the proposal that originally went to the Liberal party room, which we know was on 1 March 2021. It is probably unusual that the opposition historically gets copies of party room discussions from the government, but this is the world of the minority government we live in. The minister was listed as Vickie Chapman MP, the Attorney-General, and it said:

2. Those provisions that are to be permanently enacted are considered essential for managing the COVID-19 pandemic and other emergencies in the future, and also to modernise some practices in South Australia…

3. This is especially important as the State Government looks to move away from responding to COVID-19 within the emergency management framework.

At another time, back in March, the Premier was telling his own party room that they were looking to move away from the emergency management framework. We have gone from 1 March to the end of May and there is still no movement along those lines.

Very clearly, the recommendation was to support the introduction of the bill that sitting week. That did not happen because the Attorney was rolled. Very clearly her proposal, said to amend the Emergency Management Act 2004 to clarify and extend the powers of the State Coordinator in a major emergency, listed a very significant number of those changes that would be made and included the top dot point: 'To issue a direction that applies to persons generally throughout the State.' That is the key provision missing from this legislation after there was dissent inside the government over the Attorney-General's proposal.

We have a copy of the original draft which the Attorney had circulated, which had that provision included in it but which no longer exists here in the bill that we are now discussing in the parliament. That was listed under what was clause 7, which was to delete subsection (3) and substitute:

(3) The State Co-ordinator (or a delegate of the State Co-ordinator) may give a direction or make a requirement under this section that applies to persons generally throughout the State.

That no longer exists in the legislation that the Attorney-General is promoting here, even though she said to her own party room that it was essential for the operation and management of COVID-19 in South Australia that that be included.

So we have a legislative proposal that the Attorney was rolled on, and we have proposals that have been circulating within government for more than six months as to how they are going to manage the moving away from the Emergency Management Act, as the Attorney said in her paper. That has not appeared in the parliament, it has not been brought to the public's attention and there has been no debate about what those proposals are. We do not know what the problem is that has caused that lack of progress for over six months, and we still face a very real threat. Clearly, we still face issues in our medi-hotel program.

I think it is startling to South Australians that we currently do not have 100 per cent of the people who work in medi-hotels vaccinated but that in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and other states they are all vaccinated—100 per cent of people who work in those hotels are vaccinated—yet in South Australia the latest advice we heard this morning was that it is in the order of 85 per cent.

We have had our second leakage now from the Playford Hotel and it is causing significant issues across the border. That could easily have caused significant issues in South Australia. We have a government that is refusing calls from experts around the country to do away with hotel quarantine and to establish permanent quarantine facilities. We have been calling for that since November.

We have written to the Prime Minister, and we have written to the Premier, and put on the table the need to establish those permanent facilities. If we had been listened to back in November, we may well have had facilities opening now, but instead we are using decades-old hotels throughout the central business district of Adelaide.

Some of these hotels are 30 or 40 years old and they clearly do not have the ventilation required to make sure that they are appropriately safe. We still do not have the private security guards and other staff in the hotels vaccinated, despite the fact that the vaccine program has been running since February and we are now at the end of May. So there are some very clear issues that have not been addressed.

We clearly need the ability to use QR codes for the foreseeable future, as long as the pandemic is a risk. We absolutely support that. We absolutely support the need for restrictions where the health advice dictates that they be in place. You have seen from us a very different response to that than most other state oppositions around the country. We have supported all of those health restrictions that have had to be put in place, as we have supported all of the legislation. But clearly there are risks in terms of hotel quarantine that we have not seen an appropriate response to.

Certainly, this is the responsibility of the minister. We know that the hotel quarantine program is under one of the deputy chief executives. In fact, up until recently it was under the chief nurse of the state, then a deputy chief executive of SA Health, then the Chief Executive of SA Health and then the Minister for Health. So it was a different management process from how other restrictions have been managed by the State Coordinator and the Chief Public Health Officer.

This is in the government's ability (what they have left as a non-COVID management cabinet government) to make provisions, to make budget decisions and to make provisions so that we have safer quarantine arrangements. That has not happened in South Australia. We have other states that are putting on the table very substantial proposals to the commonwealth for permanent facilities that would be much more able to safely manage people arriving from overseas. We have not had that proposal here; in fact, the Premier scoffed at such proposals when they were raised in November.

This legislation will have our support through this house, but I think there are some very important questions that we need to get answers to in the committee stage from the Attorney-General in relation to this debate.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (11:33): I acknowledge the contribution by the opposition and their indication of qualified support for the bill. I just wish to make a couple of observations in relation to the matters raised and any particular concerns as to the initiatives that are proposed under the permanency measures can be explored in committee.

To be absolutely clear, the Emergency Management Act sets out a regime for the coordination of an emergency. It also sets out incident procedures and catastrophic incident procedures but, in relation to emergency management, there is a declaration process, there is a coordinator appointment and there is a provision as to who makes the directions and how that is to occur, largely, and the obligation of the coordinator and his or her authorised officers for its implementation and enforcement. As has been mentioned, there are various committee processes and advisory roles that sit around that structure.

I want to make it absolutely clear that cabinet government continues. One thing the member continues to repeat in this house is the assertion that the governance of the state is under the coordinator. The Emergency Management Act itself, which I would have thought the member would be familiar with, since he was, I think, an adviser to ministers at the time it was created in this parliament, actually sets out that the determination of a declaration is by cabinet and by the Governor, in fact, and it can only be extended for a period of 28 days.

The overall supervision of the structure that is to be applied for the purposes of the act is a declaration process not by the police commissioner, not by Professor Nicola Spurrier, not by this parliament, but by the cabinet in its advice to the Governor. I just make that point. Indeed, regularly since March 2020 that process has occurred where there is an issuing of a decision of cabinet to the Governor with a request that it be endorsed. That is the process that continues.

Around that, this parliament has been asked from time to time to make a decision, usually in three-monthly bites, if I can colloquialise it in that way, on what extra measures we might need to make either in the relaxation and/or modification of laws that enable us to continue to function in the community in a law-abiding way within the envelope of living with a pandemic. That has been an important role of the parliament and we appreciate the parliament's not only capacity but willingness to deal with this as promptly as has been required to deal with this international pandemic.

From time to time, there have been indications by the Premier and our government of the desire to move out of emergency management and, indeed, for our whole community to move forward into the phase of economic recovery. This is after a very substantial input of money and support to our citizens, and that has come from all levels of government, to get back to normal, whatever normal is going to be in the future.

There is no question that, from time to time, even that process has been interrupted by circumstance. Last year, pre Christmas, we had the Parafield cluster. It sent us into a circumstance where we needed to immediately trace what might have been a disastrous outcome of contagion from that incident. Indeed, it was the proposal at that stage that everyone stay at home for six days, except in very limited circumstances, and that we try to trace these people.

Within a couple of days I think something like 4,000 people had been traced. It all worked and we were able to be reassured that there had been an identification of the likely people who would need to be tested, that matters were under control, and in fact we were all let out after three days—great. I suppose that was our first experience of having to deal with an immediate response requiring a lockdown, which, thankfully, in South Australia has been rare, unlike in other states where there have been very substantial periods of lockdown.

Only last weekend, I had some friends come over from Melbourne. It was the first time they had left the state for 17 months and they were pretty pleased to get out, I might say. Nevertheless, Victoria has had a pretty shocking set of circumstances. We, of course, right from the beginning of this pandemic have had our health and our professional people assisting Victoria to try to deal with some of the difficulties they have had.

Over in Western Australia, they have also been blighted by lots of situations that I would describe as fairly extreme responses to their situation. That is a matter for their government and their people to make those decisions, but I note Mr Clive Palmer, who is probably well known to most people, is on his third High Court challenge on the restrictions that Western Australia has imposed. I think he started with Queensland and lost there. He went to Western Australia, challenged there and lost the first case. He is now challenging the very legislation that the Western Australian Labor government has introduced, ostensibly to protect its citizens and restrict their movement and restrict others from coming to the state, and that is under challenge in the High Court as we speak.

In fact, just recently I instructed our Solicitor-General for us to be no longer participatory in that litigation. We will watch and observe and see what the High Court does with it. It just indicates to us the need to learn from other states' actions. We follow very carefully where there have been successes and we learn from where there have not been. Something that has been very clear to us all through this is that, as a state government, we need to assist our authorities or State Coordinator or authorised officers or public health advisers, etc., to ensure that, in the process of the drafting and implementation of directions, we do not overstep the mark.

We do not want our state to end up in the High Court and have lots of legal costs, etc. We want to be very clear that we will have minimum but necessary imposition on our citizens, whether that be movement, distancing or attendance at functions and the like. We are trying to have a fairly light touch, as it would be, legally to ensure that our citizens are not unreasonably restricted in any aspect of the lifestyle, employment, family life or attendance at school, etc. These are all very key for our government to be sure that we are doing everything we can to protect our people but within the envelope of minimal interference or restriction.

From visits I made last week to the Northern Territory and New South Wales, and indeed the Premier also was in New South Wales, I think it is fair to say that we are doing pretty well relative to some of the places we have visited. I think we should be very proud of the support we have had from South Australians to assist all levels of government that operate in this state. Indeed, I acknowledge the work of the Coordinator and Professor Spurrier, who with their respective teams have done an outstanding job of keeping us safe.

Secondly, this year there have been occasions when we felt, with the rollout of vaccinations and the like, we would again be moving towards recovery to normality in South Australia, as everyone is looking at across Australia. Sadly, overseas it is a very different situation. Thousands of people are still dying every day in other countries, so we are pretty lucky here, unquestionably, but we are still looking to try to have some economic survival and recovery, and that has been a mission of both the federal and state governments around the country, supported by our local government structures as well.

I make this point: if we do have an outbreak as in Victoria, for example—another five cases; I think it was four overnight and another one this morning—we need to be conscious again of the potential severity of the contamination or the expansion of that contagion within those envelopes. We have to be fairly careful. We have not had another Parafield cluster in South Australia, but it could happen, so we have to be conscious of that.

I note the comments made in relation to the provision of quarantine facilities in our hotels. I wish to place on record my appreciation to those who operate hotels in South Australia who volunteered their premises in the early days to be able to make them available for quarantine purposes. Obviously, there was minimal interstate travel at those times, and certainly overseas travel was shut down as well, so there was an opportunity, I suppose, for them to say that these facilities were available. They came to the government to say, 'We are prepared to be on the list, to make ourselves available for this service, and we will sign up to that.' I firstly want to thank them for doing that.

Secondly, it provided us with a model that I think will stand us in good stead. If there is an area of contamination, whether it is in a prison or an aged-care home, a boarding school or a hospital, we can decant those who are positive into a separate facility. That is not the same model that was adopted in New South Wales. They had a different view. If they had an outbreak in a prison—luckily we did not have any, but they did have some—they would not decant them into another facility. Their model was to take them into a unit or a wing within the prison facility to place them in isolation.

So there are different models around Australia, but in our case we proceeded down this way. We thank those who provided that service and indeed all the health professionals and security officers who provided services and all the small businesses around these hotels that were providing services to those who were working in those facilities. A big thank you to those in South Australia who provided that service.

The vaccination program is underway and we are, of course, receiving our share. Unsurprisingly, this is a fairly highly sought after product in the world at the moment and organisations, such as the World Health Organization, have been very clear in their messaging that obviously we need to share this vaccination with the rest of the world. I think it is fair to say that we are probably in the category of the least in danger. We are not losing people who are dying every day or having tens of thousands of people a day—or in India hundreds of thousands of people a day—who are catching this virus and contaminating others in their family and their immediate community.

We are in a lucky space. Notwithstanding that, we have secured and negotiated and are receiving our allocated share. We are undertaking the distribution through the commonwealth government and its application is via medical practitioners and hospitals under federal and state distribution respectively, so it is on its way out. As members would have read in the paper today, young people in the country are going to be the next cohort to receive their vaccinations.

I do not know about other members, but I receive on a very regular basis from the younger generation their desire to have their shot. They are probably a little bit less risk averse than older people, who might have some other comorbidity and are a bit concerned about their health in relation to it. Again, that is probably unsurprising given, frankly, some rather bizarre media coverage over blood clotting and so on. I think it is totally irresponsible. Caleb Bond highlighted this in an article.

I was at a dinner of the Australian Medical Association (SA division) on Saturday night, as was the member who just spoke. Leigh Sales from the ABC gave a very interesting speech about the work she is undertaking and a book she has just published—I think her third book—in which she highlights the media's attention in relation to issues such as blood clotting and concerns that have been raised and focusing in on something that is very unrepresentative of either the severity or the extent of what is being talked about. It has the effect of unnerving people and it has had the effect, clearly, of causing some concern and, as a result, some will of course elect not to have the vaccination as nothing is compulsory about it.

Overwhelmingly, certainly in my assessment, young people are saying, 'Let us line up. We are ready to go. We want to travel. We want to play sport. We want to be able to interact with our friends. We want to be able to attend functions. We want to be able to dance. We want to be able to do all these other things.' Probably, like most young people, they think they are fairly impervious to any kind of threat to their wellbeing. Nevertheless, they are very keen to get on with it, so our government has initiated access to vaccinations for over 16 year olds in country regions and, of course, according to the program that will continue to be applied.

It is extraordinary work being done under the leadership of the Hon. Stephen Wade, who is our Minister for Health. I thank him and his health department for that program, together with the ongoing advice in relation to public health recommendations from Professor Nicola Spurrier.

The particular aspects that are otherwise covered in the bill for continued permanency in future emergencies I will not dwell on because I think members may have some other questions in relation to the particular application of those. I will be happy to hold those over to the committee. Otherwise, I thank the opposition for their indication of support.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

The CHAIR: We have 23 clauses and a schedule. There are amendments on file and, we understand, more to come. I invite questions on clause 1.

Clause 1.

Mr PICTON: It is funny: just as we were starting this committee stage I got a notification on my phone from the COVIDSafe app: 'To improve the performance of COVIDSafe, open the app and check your internet or mobile data.' It feels like a long time ago that we were talking about the COVIDSafe app, which apparently never really detected anybody, at least in South Australia.

There will be a number of questions in relation to this bill, some of which I have flagged in the second reading stage, but firstly I wonder if the Attorney can very clearly tell us where exactly the proposals are that have been talked about for the past six or seven months to move out of the Emergency Management Act and into a new proposal, a new management regime? What is being discussed? Why is there still no proposal that has been brought to the parliament or released publicly from the government?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I made it clear in the response I just gave that there are continuing matters that are under consideration and, for the reasons I pointed out, the Emergency Management Act model should continue to apply. That has been occurring in March and May this year, and indeed before Christmas last year, which are the consequences I have indicated as to how that is applying.

Mr PICTON: So we have no answer to what is being considered, no answer to why nothing has been released publicly or brought to the parliament, no answer to what the issues have been that have been causing concern in terms of releasing this, given that it has now been since before the Parafield cluster, which was the middle of November, when apparently these discussions were taking place, according to the Premier. The mind boggles.

Perhaps the Attorney can answer: in relation to this legislation, what did the State Coordinator, Grant Stevens, and/or the Chief Public Health Officer, Professor Nicola Spurrier, request or provide comments on in relation to this legislation before the parliament now?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Both were supportive of the initiatives.

Mr PICTON: That is a very short and sharp answer; however, clearly when we have two versions of this legislation, it is hard to know what they were supportive of. Were they supportive of the legislation that was brought to the party room or the one that was subsequently changed and brought to the parliament? Can the Attorney outline exactly what provisions in relation to that bill that was brought to the party room were taken out before this was brought to the parliament?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In short, throughout the development of this bill, Professor Nicola Spurrier and Commissioner Grant Stevens were supportive of the initiatives in the bill, including the one that is before you.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr PICTON: I am just going to follow up on that because I asked the Attorney what the differences were between the bill that was brought to the party room and the bill that is before the parliament now. What was in that bill that is not currently in this legislation? The Attorney did not answer.

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

Mr PICTON: Your previous answer did not answer that question. Are there any provisions in the draft legislation that you took to the party room that are not in the legislation that is before the house now and, if so, what are those provisions?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have made it clear: we presented a bill to the parliament and there has been the development of that. At all material times, Professor Spurrier and Commissioner Grant Stevens supported the initiatives throughout.

Mr PICTON: The provisions that were in the bill that you took to the party room—which I understood to include changes to the powers of the State Coordinator in relation to issuing a direction across the state—were those provisions that are not in this legislation supported by the State Coordinator and the Chief Public Health Officer?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot assist the member any further.

The CHAIR: If I can make a comment here, we are actually dealing with the amendment bill as it is presented, member for Kaurna.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr PICTON: Why has the Attorney-General instructed the Solicitor-General to withdraw from a High Court case as an intervening party in relation to, I believe, Mr Palmer's challenge in relation to borders?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We have been involved through a number of the court cases in South Australia because it related to the very pertinent issue about the directions powers of other states, Queensland and Western Australia in particular. There was also a case that was challenging the right of movement of a person in Victoria. I think it was a restaurateur who made a challenge in relation to directions powers there.

Largely, we have had a watching brief. We have been at the table to deal with that, but the remaining Palmer challenges—if I can put them in that category—that I am aware of relate to the validity of Western Australian legislation, which, if I were to try to describe it, is much more penetrating and restrictive than in other action that has been taken around the country. That is a matter for the Western Australian government and no doubt they will rise or fall based on what the High Court says about the validity of that legislation. But Mr Palmer, as I understand it, is suggesting that it is ultra vires in relation to the power that is purported to be exercised in that legislation.

Mr PICTON: You do not believe that we have any view, as a state government, in terms of our constitutional powers, that would be appropriate to be brought before the High Court in relation to what is a challenge to a state law in Western Australia, which, presumably, if it goes bad might impact upon our legislative ability and our constitutional powers in South Australia?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If it did, I think the Solicitor-General would bring it to my attention, and he has not, and he has recommended that we withdraw, so we have.

Clause passed.

Clause 4 passed.

Clause 5.

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

Amendment No 1 [AG–1]—

Page 4, after line 21 [clause 5, inserted section 53]—Insert:

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a meeting or transaction, or meeting or transaction of a class, prescribed by the regulations.

This amendment to clause 5 inserts subsection (3). For the information of members, new subsection (1) in clause 5 of the Statutes Amendment (COVID-19 Permanent Measures) Bill 2021 provides:

(1) If an Act requires that a meeting occur or…transaction take place that requires 2 or more persons to be physically present, the requirement—

is met if the meeting or transaction occurs remotely using AV or audio means. This amendment inserts the new subsection (3), as I have just read out, to allow certain meetings or transactions, or certain meetings or transactions of a particular class, to be excluded from the operation of these provisions by regulation.

Similar provisions to new subsection (1) in clause 5 have been in practice under the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act 2020 over the last year. In some cases, a review will be undertaken to ascertain how these provisions have been working in practice before the meetings will be allowed to occur via audiovisual means on a permanent basis.

In the case of local councils, the Office of Local Government is concerned to fully understand the implications of allowing meetings to occur electronically, particularly given the strong community expectation that such meetings be accessible to them and to allow council discussions to be transparent and well managed within the chamber. There is also a need to maintain a high level of accountability and integrity for such meetings, such as the proper management of conflicts of interest.

This amendment will allow local councils to be excluded from the operation of this provision while the review is undertaken. On the basis of the advice I have received outlining those concerns, I present this amendment for your consideration.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 6 to 8 passed.

Clause 9.

Mr PICTON: This is another matter that I flagged in my second reading speech. On what basis does the protection from liability need to be extended to additional acts as the Attorney-General is now proposing?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If I can speak generally, the clause has the effect of protection of all good faith actions from liability. We are talking about those who are acting in good faith and not with any mischievous purpose. I should also mention that I am advised that a person who mistakenly acts beyond their powers but genuinely thinks they are empowered or obliged to do something would be acting in good faith.

On the advice I have received, these are examples of where the provisions might operate: where there was a direction of the State Coordinator that cafes and restaurants can only serve takeaway, if a place was wrongfully shut down the proprietor could not claim economic loss from the government. If it is found that the police officer had bad faith in decision-making, this clause would not protect the police officer. For the benefit of the member asking the question, police officers are authorised officers under the act.

Another example is where there is a failure to close a school which results in a caregiver catching the virus and in turn results in a reduced ability to care for a child which is then said to impact the child psychologically but also impact the child's long-term ability to achieve their full potential with loss of income earning capacity. That is drawing a long bow, isn't it? Anyway, that is an example. This may not manifest for many years. Again, that is another example that was given.

Finally, another example is a direction to close a type of business which results in a person losing work which some time down the track results in long-term unemployment and psychological detriment. As long as these actions are done in good faith, then the provisions of the protection from liability will operate under this clause.

Mr PICTON: Why does the government view it as necessary to make the immunity clause retrospective, which certainly in our interpretation could mean that there could be not just an impact later but also a government decision or regulation made later which would have this retrospective immunity power applied to it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The retrospectivity, in a sense, introduces a protection for things that have occurred during the course of this pandemic. Of course, that has been really noticeable since February last year or, for the application of this act, some of these obligations and directions that have been issued and statutory impositions have been essentially since March last year.

There may well be instances, such as I have given, which have already occurred but which may not manifest themselves in any kind of claim or support for damages and the like until some years to come. Yes, it is retrospective in the sense that it is to cover any acts of good faith in respect of the protection that is granted during the course of this pandemic and during the course of the operation of the act.

Mr PICTON: What kinds of actions has the government taken that it reasonably expects could give rise to claims against the government and why aren't the existing liability measures that we already have sufficient to cover those?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have just given you three. I suppose I could try to think about some others. In relation to any of the directions that have been given, which have very often been things like you cannot dance—although I do not suppose you would have many damages or liability out of not being allowed to dance.

But say, for example, there had been a restriction on the number of people who could attend a funeral or a wedding and there were cancellation costs, as a government, we have been trying to assist people who have had some pecuniary impost as a result of all the restrictions and so on that have been imposed. But from time to time a number of these directions would have had a direct impact on somebody's capacity to earn income, receive a benefit and so on. There could be a number of them.

In any event, we want to make it absolutely clear that, if you are acting in good faith, you will be protecting against liability in relation to that. It is not uncommon, of course, for the Crown or others to have protection. I am advised that the difference between the existing provision in the EM Act and the new provision is firstly that it protects from liability under the COVID act into the future when the current provision expires—so, that is obviously important. The current COVID specific provision under the EM act and the Public Health Act applies to the Crown. This one applies to individuals as well. Thirdly, this provision ensures consistency from liability under the EM Act, the COVID act and the Public Health Act. My excellent adviser here has given me that comprehensive response.

Clause passed.

Clauses 10 to 13 passed.

Clause 14.

Mr PICTON: This is in relation to visits by the community visitor. I could have asked similar questions in relation to the Mental Health Act as well. But to cover it off once, we now have a standard that is being set that if, in the opinion of the Principal Community Visitor, it is not reasonably practical for a community visitor to physically visit or enter the relevant premises—so it is quite a low standard—now, via audiovisual or other electronic means, the visit could occur.

So the question to the Attorney is: does she not see that allowing this very broad use of audiovisual or other electronic means for inspections of facilities could create the risk that visitors may not detect things that they otherwise might have seen if they were physically present on the premises?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is no doubt that the Community Visitor Scheme, which provides for the physical attendance at mental health facilities—and has now broadened to a number of other areas of responsibility—has been very important. In fact, from our side of politics from opposition, we fought very hard under the Mental Health Act for the establishment of the Community Visitor Scheme. There was an amendment. I think the Minister for Education at the time was Minister Lomax-Smith, and ultimately she conceded to having it incorporated and made provision for it.

Firstly, we are very conscious of the significance of this scheme and it has now been, as I say, expanded in the disability area and in relation to other vulnerable people in our community. So it is a very important program. Secondly, our Public Advocate, Anne Gale, who is responsible to me as Attorney-General in my department, is currently the Principal Community Visitor in South Australia. As Public Advocate and team leader, she and her team operate as community visitors and deal with vulnerable people every day. We applaud her work, especially during the pandemic. It has been a real challenge.

In fact, I have valued Ms Gale's advice, together with people such as Professor Richard Bruggeman. These people have been very valuable in advising the government and our public health department on how we might best deal with vulnerable people in these situations, particularly those who might be in a mental health institution who suffer a disability, have age-related dementia or other frailties that cause them to be in that position.

Let me say from the outset that I have every confidence in Ms Gale as both our Public Advocate and the Principal Community Visitor supervising this scheme. I do not see this as broad at all. She is the one who makes that determination. The act provides for it, and I have every confidence in her doing it.

Secondly, it is to be done in a circumstance where she is satisfied that there are risks—I paraphrase this now—in relation to continuing to do a physical attendance. For example, a person doing the inspection could go to the home of a person living with disability where carers are present and may carry the virus with them. The last thing we would want to do is add to the burden of those who are vulnerable in our community by being contaminated with this virus. That is the last thing we would want to happen.

Mr Picton: This is post COVID—you want it as permanent.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: These are permanent measures in an emergency—not forever, anywhere, any time when you feel like it. It is in an emergency. I am being told it is even more general in the circumstances that are there. So it is still specified in the act.

Mr Picton: It's not just in an emergency, so you are wrong.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No. I beg your pardon, it is specified in the act. Let's be clear: it is not just anywhere, any time when you feel like—it is as specified in the act. I do have every confidence in relation to Ms Gale's capacity to operate this scheme, and I am very confident that she will continue to do what is required.

She also reports to me regularly in relation to the inspections she does under the Mental Health Act, for example, for which there are mandatory attendances per year. Also, in relation to disability, some attendances are mandatory and some are optional and she has a program of how that occurs. She reports to me regularly. She not only reports to me regularly when it has occurred but she also reports when required in a circumstance where it is either on the phone or in some AVL capacity.

I have also made it clear, and she has supported this, that where there has been a telephone inquiry or somebody has walked around with a camera so that there can be an inspection in a non-personal attendance way, there is a personal visit as soon as practicable after that.

Mr Picton: That's not in the legislation.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I know it's not. The member shouts out, 'That's not in the legislation.' No, I am just telling you why I have such confidence in Ms Gale as our Public Advocate and Principal Community Visitor. This is what she is doing extra.

Mr Picton interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The member for Kaurna will cease interjecting. He has been persistent in that during the Attorney's response.

Mr Picton interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, do not argue with the Chair, please. You will have two more opportunities to ask questions on this clause. Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you, Chair. I have every confidence in Ms Gale in relation to her role in this regard. Of course, to date, in any event, there has been no indication of some weakness, that is, that there has been some unidentified event or circumstance that has not been viewed as a result of not having a personal attendance, which has subsequently been identified as a weakness in that process.

For all those reasons, I think it is not unreasonable that we maintain the opportunity to do this so that at the very least there is some continued scrutiny in relation to the protection of these people in these circumstances. I am very confident of the model that operates.

Mr PICTON: That was absolutely shocking, in that the Attorney-General just completely misinterpreted her own legislation and gave advice to the parliament that was 100 per cent wrong, that this only applied in relation to an emergency such as COVID-19. That is completely wrong. This applies forever. That is what she is proposing here.

Just as a bit of a hint I even read out the section to her, where the Principal Community Visitor believes 'it is not reasonably practical for a community visitor to physically visit or enter the premises'. That is going to apply forever into the future, whether there is a public health or an emergency management emergency in place.

It is shocking that the Attorney-General clearly has not read her own legislation and has not been properly briefed on it. Thank goodness she was able to get some briefing whilst speaking to correct her complete error in relation to that. It does make me wonder whether, if she is not across the detail of this, she actually has thought through the fact that we are now making this permanent, this is not just in relation to COVID, and it will be in place forevermore.

Further to that there is also an additional clause: (a) if the Principal Community Visitor deems that it should be done by Skype or the phone or other electronic means, so presumably just audio would suffice under that, and (b) the visit or inspection occurs in any circumstances prescribed by regulations. I would ask the Attorney, and perhaps she can get briefed before trying to answer this one: what are the situations that are considered in relation to 52B(1)(b) where the visit would be under regulations? What types of circumstances are envisaged for those regulations where the government would be mandating that this type of inspection can occur in certain situations?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to 'visit or inspection occurs in any other circumstances prescribed by regulations', as the member would be well aware, for example, we have a new cohort of people who are under NDIS plans and they are under consideration as well, so there will be changing definitions in the services that are provided by the Community Visitor Scheme that have expanded already since the Mental Health Act amendments in relation to disability and now we have others.

I suspect that, as a result of the royal commissions in relation to aged care and disability, which is still pending, there may even be more. This is a moving area of supervision and security. I think the public are looking for some support for those vulnerable people in our community so they are supervised, and we may need to make that prescription by regulation to cover that.

While I am on it, the member might also like to read subclause (6), which sets out the obligation of the community visitor in ensuring what information has to be reported on a publicly accessible website and updated on at least a quarterly basis, and it sets out all that material. I would urge the member to read it.

Mr PICTON: I am not quite sure that that answer would even been correct because it is talking about the types of inspections that occur (i.e., aged care, NDIS), as opposed to, 'These are the circumstances in which a non-physical but an audiovisual inspection would take place.' I do not want to answer your question for you but, presumably, if there were some sort of emergency, that would be the type of thing that you would prescribe by regulations. Clearly, the Attorney is not across that either.

During the COVID emergency, the Attorney did touch on the fact that she believed that she had not heard of any problems, sort of 'see no evil, hear evil', in terms of any problems that occurred in relation to only doing audiovisual inspections so far. Of course, it would be difficult to know whether things had been detected or not.

Has there actually been any evaluation done though? Are we just taking people's word for it that there was nothing that should have been picked up that had not been picked up, or have we actually done any study or any evaluation on the audiovisual inspections to see what sorts of risks were identified? Was there anything that was not picked up? Are there any issues with that approach going forward? Are we now making this permanent, or are we just hoping for the best?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not sure if there has been a review of the Principal Community Visitor's process, other than the fact that she has to give me regular reports and identifies in those circumstances if she has done some audiovisual inspection as distinct from a personal attendance. Sometimes it is because the programmed community visitor is sick themselves or obviously is in a vulnerable circumstance and so they then do the audiovisual and those sorts of things; from time to time, she has reported those.

But as to a review of that, the only immediate sort of oversight of the people vulnerable in this situation I think is by Mr Bruggemann, where there is a circumstance of someone being kept in a detention circumstance, and you might recall that there is quite an extensive provision in our COVID laws that has applied—

Mr Picton: This is different.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I understand that, but I am just explaining that where there is someone who, for example, is kept separated from others because they might not understand or appreciate the significance of touching or hugging other people, they might be kept in a separate room or area to other people in the residence. This is the sort of thing where we have tried to make sure, as legislators here in this parliament, that we keep the protections there but also minimise the restrictions. We need to keep our people safe, including people who are vulnerable, but also be able to protect them.

In terms of the inspection process in any of these entities, whether it is a mental health hospital or generally in a hospital or in a prison or in an aged-care facility, vulnerable people are in lots of these places and we need to be able to maintain, as much as we can, impromptu attendances and obviously the capacity to access and see what is going on. Although we do have the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner, the Ombudsman, the Guardian for Children and Young People (Penny Wright), the head of the children's training centre, the children's court—there are myriad people who have a role, usually in charge of some kind of integrity body, and who have inspectorate powers and access entitlements to a number of these people who are in vulnerable situations.

We have a lot of different agencies that have different roles, depending on what the institution is or the facility and, as much as we can, we want to be able to maintain that so that we do not end up with people in those circumstances who might be harmed in some way. In respect of this specifically, we expect that there is compliance with the legal obligations in relation to inspecting these places and, as I have indicated, we expect a follow-up in a circumstance where there has not been able to be a physical inspection and, to the best of my knowledge, that is occurring.

Clause passed.

Clauses 15 to 21 passed.

Clause 22.

Mr DULUK: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Duluk-1]

Page 10, lines 30 to 33—Delete subclauses (3) and (4).

I will speak briefly. My concern mainly comes out of the power to require detention, which is of course in the South Australian Public Health Act 2011 and is what these clauses seek to amend. From the briefing we had with the minister's staff previously, I have not been satisfied that there has been enough need granted to extend the time limit for someone to be in detention under this section of the act from 48 hours to 72 hours. Obviously, I am looking to keep the status quo in my amendment and I thank the opposition for their support in this as well.

Mr PICTON: I will just make some brief comments in relation to this amendment. This has just been brought to our attention by the member for Waite. I think it is worth making note of a couple of things. One is that this is in relation to the period of notification. This is not in relation to the time period or the manner in which somebody can be detained but is merely saying that if you are being detained you have to be notified within 48 hours as to why you are being detained. The government are proposing to change that so you could go 71½ hours in detention without even being told why you are being detained.

This is something that we are prepared to support through this house. If there is some compelling reason that is brought to our attention as to why that needs to be in place, then we are happy to consider it through the houses, should this amendment be successful. But we certainly have not heard that from our briefings to date and would therefore be supportive of this amendment to make sure that people get notified when they are being detained, as has been in the Public Health Act since it passed a decade ago.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for Waite for the reference to this. Essentially, it is to propose that the 48-hour time frame be maintained for obligation of reporting as distinct from the proposed 72 hours. I am advised that this is to accommodate where there is a multiple number of parties who have to be reported on and so that is why the time frame is proposed to be extended.

I am also advised that, in relation to the amendment to section 77 under clause 22, apparently we are no longer progressing with subclauses (3) and (4), which also moves 48 to 72, because this multiple factor of parties does not apply. So that is unnecessary for subclauses (3) and (4) in this bill and only seeks to expand it to 72 hours' notification time in subclause (1). On that basis and on the advice I have received, we would oppose this amendment, but you can be assured that we are not taking any issue with the 48 hours remaining in the current subsections (6)(a) and (b).

Mr DULUK: Unless I have misinterpreted what the Attorney says, my amendment looks to deal with section 77(6)(b)(i) and section 77(8a), which are amended in clause 22(3) and (4). That is indeed what we are seeking to remove. I think that is what the Attorney is saying and that her advice does not have a problem with this issue. Attorney, for your clarity, are you looking to leave section 77(3a) at 72 hours?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In short, I think the answer in relation to lines 30 to 33—that is, subclause (3) and subclause (4), which is what you are seeking to delete—is that we are happy with that, but if you are progressing it under subclause (1)—

Mr DULUK: No.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No?

Mr DULUK: No, I am not.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Right. No problem.

Amendment carried.

Mr DULUK: Attorney, subclause (2) is seeking to insert new subsection (5a), can you give us some examples of when these detentions may be imposed by the Chief Public Health Officer?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot give you any answer other than the only one that I think is relevant to this that I am aware of. You might recall that at the beginning of the pandemic concerns there was a young women, I think a university student, who was returning from overseas and her parents were here. It turned out that she was positive. I think from memory she was Chinese born.

She was treated, and her parents were at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. I think I am recalling this correctly. I am getting a bit of a nod here. They said, 'Well, look, we're not staying.' My understanding is that there was some question at the time about whether there was sufficient power under the public health laws for the authorised person—this is the Chief Public Health Officer or an authorised person, and we are under the Public Health Act now—to hold them there.

I do not know what happened in the end, except that, as I understand it, they did stay. I am not sure how that happened, but anyway. They might have been told that they would have to stay there and they did. In any event, the situation was dealt with on that occasion. Obviously, the Chief Public Health Officer, or at least the person who was in charge at the hospital, considered that there was a risk that the young woman who had the virus, or at least who was suspected of having the virus at that stage, could well have contaminated her parents and that they were then at risk of leaving the hospital and spreading it elsewhere.

That is the only time I can recall. This is before the Emergency Management Act powers were invoked and we were actually operating under the public health law and under the act that we are now proposing to amend. That is the only one that I can recall where it had been raised as to the extent of the authority of a person to actually hold that person in the hospital on that occasion.

Mr DULUK: With respect to the insertion of subsection (5a), at what point will it interface with section 79 of the South Australian Public Health Act, where it states:

If the Chief Public Health Officer considers it necessary to do so, the Chief Public Health Officer may apply to a magistrate—

(a) for the issue of a warrant for the apprehension by an authorised person—

Will the insertion of section 77(5a) override that need for a warrant at all?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not necessarily. Using the same scenario, had the parents left the hospital, then it may be necessary for them to issue the warrant. This really relates to the fact that they are there: they are on the site or they are within an area where they can be restrained or apprehended. The only other time I can think of, in the time I have been here in the parliament, is some years ago when a group of schoolchildren returned from China. I cannot remember whether it was the bird flu, but it was one of those flus.

The children were asked to stay at home, not go to school, until they were all checked to see if they might be carriers. The Public Health Act was drawn upon for an indication of what to do. One of the schools on the trip was from my electorate and, as you would expect from a school in my electorate, they were all very willing to comply and they did all the right things and they stayed home. Obviously, they were keen to protect their own, other students, staff, etc., and everyone was happy. After an appropriate time, they were all tested and everything was fine.

That is the sort of situation where I would imagine, had there been a family who just said, 'Well, we're not interested in doing that. We are going on holidays to Victor Harbor and we're leaving,' it might be necessary for the Chief Public Health Officer to exercise the new (5a) if they were already here or, if they had already gone to Victor Harbor, issue the warrant.

Clause as amended passed.

Remaining clause (23), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (12:37): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.