Bills

South Australian Public Health (COVID-19) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Member for Hammond.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:38): Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker, and I welcome you to your current elevated position. I rise to make some further remarks in regard to the South Australian Public Health (COVID-19) Amendment Bill 2022. I was just venturing into my remarks earlier today about some of the issues with border communities. They are many and varied.

There are many farmers who own land on either side of the border, and there were many intricacies in managing those farms with lockdowns and all the COVID management. I want to acknowledge Commissioner Grant Stevens and Nicola Spurrier, Chief Public Health Officer, for the massive amount of work they have done over the last two years with all their teams in helping to manage COVID across the state.

It got down to some very fundamental issues that were brought to me as a local member with a border community. There was a family farm with a father and a couple of sons working on it. It was a big property of several thousand acres just out the back of Pinnaroo, and some of their land went over the Victorian border.

With the rate of lockdowns, they were concerned that, when it got to harvest time, they would not be able to reap their crops on the Victorian side. I said, 'I think you will be okay. You're an essential service. Where do you get through to your Victorian land?' They said, 'You can see it about two kilometres in the distance.' They showed me a line of trees and I asked them if they had a gate there. They said and yes, and I said, 'Right, when those crops are ready, whatever happens, you need to reap it as an essential service. I will make it my responsibility to make sure that you're okay and don’t run into any compliance issues,' and they were happy with that.

As I indicated earlier, there were many, many issues, especially with education and health services. Di Thornton lives across the border on the Victorian side and runs a private health clinic in Pinnaroo. She could not even come to work when lockdowns came in, so we had to do a lot of work with the local community to make sure that people could come across the border. I met with the principal of Pinnaroo Primary School. He is now at Mypolonga in my electorate. I had people communicating with me, including teachers who lived on the wrong side of the border, about the issues they saw in not just them getting to work but the schoolchildren as well.

I will never forget talking to the principal when a teacher I knew walked past the door. She was being very polite in how she was framing her argument to me. I could tell she was pent up and I said, 'Just let it go. I have worked in shearing sheds. I have used all the words.' Well, did I open her up, but she was still polite enough. I said, 'Now you feel a lot better that you have told me exactly how you feel.' That was the stress for border communities, but all those things were done to keep people safe. I looked at a number that was released the other day right across the country: we kept 46,000 people alive due to these restrictions.

It is tough, as no-one wants to be restricted. The Spanish flu was reflected on earlier today. Five hundred million people caught the Spanish flu over 100 years ago and 10 per cent of them died: 50 million people died from the Spanish flu. The interesting thing is that in those days they used washing your hands and social distancing. Who would have thought that in this day and age, two years ago when the COVID incident started, you would have to tell people to do something simple like wash your hands? It seemed quite odd to me.

It has been tough, and I really want to commend the health sector and the policing sector. People were subbed out to the border control points and they were getting email updates every half an hour, so if there was some confusion that is just the way it was because sometimes the rules changed pretty quickly and information flow had to happen, and they did a great job under pressure.

There were some of the most tragic stories on the border. A friend of mine had a daughter going to a school in Victoria and literally could not touch her for many months. I cannot remember how long, but it might have been close to 10 or 12 months. The deal was that she went to Naracoorte on a back road and the police were there. The daughter, who was doing year 12, sat on one side of the border and the mother sat on the other and they had to stay at least a metre apart. The police officer, who was reduced to tears in the end, said, 'If you touch her, I am going to have to arrest you.' That was how tough it was because people had to keep the rules. Obviously it got better with the exemption process and getting people through, but this gets to the nub of the question in a moment.

To say that the police were doing a great job was exemplified by a farmer friend of mine at Pinnaroo who was driving his self-propelled boom spray on a back road between his properties on the border. He pulled up to take a phone call, to do the right thing because he was on the road, and next thing a police car zoomed up. He said, 'What are you doing?' They said, 'You're right in front of one of the cameras we've got in the trees.' There were cameras set up for people who dodged the main road. These were right across the border, so the police took it extremely seriously, as they should have, and I applaud them for it. I think it did take a bit of education. I think it was city-based police officers saying, 'Well, what are you driving?' They got through that and that is fine.

It is the first time in 100 years that a worldwide pandemic has had to be managed. I certainly get it that, at any scale, people get upset about restrictions. The biggest frustration, as was indicated in the house earlier today, is the anti-vaxxers. I am a great supporter of freedom of choice. People said to me, especially before the election, 'What's your view on vaccination?' I said, 'I support freedom of choice, but whatever choice you make there are issues or complications that can be around it.' But I also said to these people, 'We need to have higher vaccination rates.' That was the issue all the way along before we could open up the borders, as we did on 23 November. It was just a real pity that Omicron loomed in the next few days.

But do you know what? One of those communities on the border, I never heard from them because they had been sick of having buds put up their noses every week, as they had to, so they could keep crossing the border to go to work. I also acknowledge the interstate truck drivers who did such a fantastic job not just carrying this state but carrying this country. Those blokes and ladies—there are a lot of ladies driving trucks now—had to get tested every seven days. It was such good work having the Tailem Bend testing station set up at the new On The Run at the motorsport park first but then at what was a Caltex but is now an Ampol on this end of Tailem Bend. That has worked brilliantly as a testing station and is where I got my PCR-positive test the other week. It was a couple of weeks ago, so do not panic.

It has been a huge job. I want to reflect on some of the misinformation that got out there. Ivermectin is a wonderful sheep drench that came out in the mid-eighties. It was life changing for sheep farmers; I think it was a clear drench, from memory. I was working in Western Australia on farms for a little while at that time before I came home to put a crop in around 1985 or '86. They had all these big launches and it was a game changer for making sure that sheep got treated for worms and I think it was itch mite as well—I would have to look at the label.

The interesting thing is how many experts googled—Google experts—figured that ivermectin was going to fix them. I was stunned by very educated people saying to me, 'This is the go.' I explained, 'Well, look, this is a sheep drench. If that's where you want to go, that's up to you, but I wouldn't be going there.'

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Did you have some? What does it taste like?

Mr PEDERICK: I haven't seen ivermectin for a long time. I had another person I had done a bit of work with; they were in the agricultural services industry. We know each other pretty well. He rang me up one morning and said, 'So, Peds, when do I need to sell my business?' I said, 'What are you talking about?' He said, 'When are you going to link ABNs to whether or not you are vaccinated?' I said, 'Are you serious? This is the first time I have ever heard that.' I appreciate it if you want to make the choice not to get vaccinated, but I said, 'There has not been any discussion about that.' It just blew me away, that level of thought about getting vaccinated, but that is alright and people can have that choice.

As time went on, we saw in both the education and health sectors—and my understanding is it was only several hundred in each sector out of tens of thousands of people in each sector—when the mandatory vaccination process came in, this created headaches. Of course it created headaches. People were making a choice—an interesting choice, I think, but that is fine. I am double-vaxxed and boostered.

I had someone ring me from the local health sector who said, 'I'm going to lose my job.' I said, 'Well, that's a choice you need to make.' It was interesting that five days later he was back at work, so he must have got vaccinated. I said that people are going to have to make a real decision if they want to keep making their house payments or living, for instance. I take my hat off to the ones who stuck to their guns, but it came at a huge cost. People were diversifying their income sources and that kind of thing. Vaccination was the key to making sure that we could start opening up the state.

We saw what happened in Western Australia, where they set up the fortress. Fair enough, they call everything outside Western Australia 'over east', but Omicron crept in and next thing was they were having hundreds of cases every day. They had not even opened the gate and it was there. It has been an interesting time.

We used to shut the state down for one case and now we are getting, I think, 4,000 or 5,000 cases a day. The superspreader events have been interesting. People can name weddings. In Robe, there was a wedding just before New Year's Eve and then there was New Year's Eve, and Robe always puts on a good show especially for much younger people than me, more in my son's age group, 18 to 21, and sure enough, many people got COVID.

My younger son thought he had it three times, and he was fully vaccinated, but by the time he got it he was just happy to get it to get it out the way. He was okay. He just went to bed and slept for 12 hours and got on with life.

In regard to where we go with the future management under this bill—and I know there will be a lot of questions asked in committee—we have to work as a parliament, because a lot of this stuff was done in a bipartisan way when we were in government, and I think we need to continue that to a certain degree.

The first people we need to think about is the community of this state and make sure we do the right thing, that we keep people alive, that we do not overload the hospital system, that we do not, God forbid, run out of ventilators or run out of intensive care unit beds because we have to look after the people of this state.

That is exactly what we did in the Marshall Liberal government. It probably cost us some paint at the last election, but we did it trying to do the right thing for the state. As was proven with the commentary the other day about keeping 46,000 people across the country alive, that is where the rubber hits the road. I will listen with interest to the rest of the debate.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (17:53): I want to thank all the people contributing to the debate: the Treasurer, the Minister for Human Services, the shadow minister, the member for Frome, and thank you for making a contribution outside the normal process, given the emergency nature of making sure we put these measures in place, as well as the member for Unley and the member for Hammond.

This is a very important piece of legislation for making sure when the declaration of the major emergency ends that baseline COVID-19 restrictions will still be in place. I thank the opposition for their indication of support, at least in this chamber, and I hope that they will support it in the other chamber. I do note that there was support from the previous opposition in regard to COVID-19 legislation and policy generally, which I think served South Australia well in terms of having a bipartisan approach to COVID-19 and I hope that that approach continues from the new opposition.

The measures that are in place here essentially are the limited number of measures that will be in place currently. We are not seeking to provide any additional ones with the exception of there being flexibility in regard to COVID-positive and close contacts. In relation to all those other sectors, they will be the restrictions that are in place under the current emergency management directions, particularly aged care, health care, hospitals and disability care. Those are the areas in which the advice is clear in terms of the need for additional protections to protect vulnerable people in sectors where we know that masks and vaccination requirements are important.

I do make the point—and I am sure that this is something that colleagues opposite would agree with—that we have had very limited vaccination requirements in South Australia compared with most other states over the past year or so. If you went to a state such as Western Australia or Queensland, and I think at various times Victoria, you would have seen very significant vaccination requirements in place in those states. In fact, under the laws vaccination passports needed to be shown to enter hospitality venues and the like. We have not seen that here except where it has been on a voluntary basis that has been put in place.

In regard to consultation that was raised, having recently been in opposition I have been on the receiving end of consultation over the past four years. I have to say we have certainly done our best given the rushed nature to make sure that we get this to the parliament, to make sure that we give parliament time to consider it over the next two sitting weeks before the end of this declaration period, to make sure that we got a briefing to the opposition as soon as possible.

Within hours—I think, a couple of hours—of cabinet considering the matter, I provided a copy of the bill to the shadow minister. Within a couple of hours after that we had a briefing for the opposition from Chief Public Health Officer Professor Spurrier and myself, and Deputy Chief Public Health Officer Dr Lease, answering questions, providing information—and that was even before we had briefed our own caucus—so there was a strong desire to make sure that the opposition had appropriate notice.

My office received a request from the former Minister for Health, the Hon. Stephen Wade, for a copy of the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech. We were immediately able to provide the explanatory memorandum and, as soon as it was finally signed off on, the second reading speech was provided as well. I have to say that of all the bills that I dealt with in opposition I do not think that the Hon. Stephen Wade ever, from my recollection, provided me with the second reading speech in advance. We are trying to go above and beyond to make sure that the opposition have information and, if there is information between the houses that they would like to seek, we will certainly make that available as well.

I think the shadow minister talked about having a 29^th extension of the Declaration of a Major Emergency essentially to give parliament more time; well, that may well have to be a possibility if parliament cannot consider this. I hope that parliament would consider this and these baseline measures would receive broad support, so we would not need to have a 29^th extension of it, given that they and a significant heightened level of restrictions in fact were in place under the previous government only a few months ago.

In relation to whether it would come back in three months or six months, we have picked six months because that will get us through the winter period. The pressure on the health system tends to be not just winter but also an element of spring as well. I guess the other factor is if we go for a shorter period then we may well have to introduce legislation to extend it very quickly after we get the legislation passed, so I would preferably hope that we would be in a position to actually review where we are at closer to the end of that six months.

It may well be that it is not necessary to extend it, whereas with a shorter level of extension it is more likely that we would need to come back to the parliament more quickly to seek an extension. However, I did want to make sure that this was appropriately sunsetted so that parliament has reassurance that, if there is going to be a continuation of this, then parliament will be involved in that process.

I think there was a question in relation to the penalties. The penalties are entirely consistent with what is in place at the moment under the Emergency Management Act. Essentially, parliamentary counsel have moved those penalties across to this legislation to make sure that they are consistent with what has been in place in relation to COVID rules for the past two years or so. In fact, some of the penalties for other breaches of the Public Health Act in terms of serious risks to public health are a lot greater than what is in place under what we are proposing specifically in relation to COVID-19, just for the next six months. With those few words, I look forward to the committee stage and further discussion and deliberation on the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms PRATT: My first question is: does the State Coordinator support this bill and is there any part of the bill that the State Coordinator does not support?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Yes, I had a discussion with the State Coordinator only yesterday in which he confirmed his support. I do not believe there is any part he does not support. We have certainly been working between Health and SAPOL on the development of this.

Ms PRATT: Does the Chief Public Health Officer support this bill and is there any part of the bill that she does not support?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Yes, I believe that the Chief Public Health Officer does support this bill. I am not aware of any part that she does not support.

Ms PRATT: Finally for clause 1, short title, does the South Australian police force support this bill and is there any part of the bill which they do not support?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think that is probably the same answer as question one, in that the head of the South Australian police force is also the State Coordinator, so I presume it is the same answer.

Mr PISONI: Are you able to provide a list of employers and community organisations that you have consulted on the bill, particularly on the clause that refers to the enforcement of directions and the penalties and those who are liable for those penalties?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: This has been consulted internally within government. It has not had an external period of consultation, given the time frames to bring this to the parliament in relation to the status of the declaration of a major emergency. On the issue that you raise specifically in terms of the penalty provisions, as I mentioned in my summing up, it is exactly the same as what is in place in relation to the Emergency Management Act. That is the nature of what was passed by the parliament back in 2004.

I understand it was a lengthy consultation process that happened in relation to those penalty provisions then, albeit there was an amendment made to that within the COVID period in relation to the penalty provisions regarding expiation notices as well as, I believe an imprisonment period. Whatever consultation process was undertaken by the government of the day in relation to those measures when you were in the cabinet room is the same process that has been undertaken here. We are seeking just to keep that entirely consistent with what has been in place for the COVID pandemic over the last couple of years.

Mr PISONI: Did you specifically consult the hospitality sector or the live music industry?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: No. As I said, this has been an internal process in government. However, the government has had broad consultation on a number of matters with the hospitality and live music sectors. I think it is fair to say that they are very supportive of the changes that have been made to the COVID-19 restrictions in the past six weeks, which are certainly supporting their businesses.

What we are seeking to do here is to carry forth the baseline of restrictions that are in place at the moment which, compared with what has been in place for hospitality and live music over the past two years, is very limited. In fact, if we were in the future to require density requirements or other capacity limits, as has been in place over the past two years in relation to the management of the pandemic, then this legislation does not give the ability to do that outside of setting another emergency declaration in place, either under the Emergency Management Act or under the South Australian Public Health Act, as has been put in place previously.

Mr PISONI: So what you are saying is you have not consulted specifically on the penalties and who is liable for those penalties with business or industry, in particular the hospitality industry, the tourism industry or the live music industry, for example. Can you confirm that?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I can confirm that these are exactly the same penalty provisions that are already in place, that were put in place through amendments to the provisions made under the Marshall Liberal government, and I presume that there was some consultation. Maybe you could enlighten us as to what that consultation was at the time, but this is exactly the same as what is currently in place in relation to those matters.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Ms PRATT: In relation to new section 90B, can the minister advise who is going to have input to and take responsibility for the recommendations that are put to the Governor?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Firstly, I should note that it is great that you are straight into being able to manage a committee stage, whereas I think when I was elected it was probably years before I was involved in a committee stage, so well done to the member for Frome for that.

Mr Cowdrey: No reflection on your ability.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: That is right. Exactly. In relation to the directions, what the government has made clear since it has been elected is that we will be using the Emergency Management Council of cabinet as the vehicle for managing issues in relation to the pandemic. In the past, there have been two different mechanisms that were used: one was the Transition Committee and the other was a COVID-Ready Committee. Both were informal committees, if you like, within the government.

We have sought to bring that back within the cabinet structure and to have the Chief Public Health Officer, the Chief Executive of the Department for Health and Wellbeing and the police commissioner as part of that process in providing advice to that committee, which I think has been serving us well over the past almost two months—six or seven weeks or so—that we have been involved in that process.

That process of EMC will be the vehicle we use to receive the advice, to make the deliberations, to make the advice which ultimately cabinet advises the Governor in terms of the setting of the directions. To be entirely clear again, these are only in relation to people who test positive for COVID-19 or who are close contacts of those people who have COVID-19.

Ms PRATT: I thank the minister for that answer. He has perhaps pre-empted the next question, but I will ask him more fully then: can the minister please explain the intended process for the development of directions, in particular what role cabinet and the committees he has referenced, and other bodies, may have in that process? Could you expand on that, please?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Yes, thank you. The Governor obviously acts on the advice of Executive Council and the cabinet, and so it would be the process, as I just outlined, through the Emergency Management Council of cabinet, where we would receive that advice and then ultimately a brief through Executive Council in relation to those.

I think it is worth noting that in relation to the other areas of particular high-risk settings, where there is a desire to essentially bring across those directions, there is a need for some flexibility in relation to COVID-19 positive and close contacts because there are likely to be some changes over time in relation to those matters, whereas we are anticipating less change in relation to the high-risk settings. Where there would be change, it would simply be a matter of removing elements of what the requirements are in those settings, whereas in relation to COVID positive or close contacts there may be some replacement.

An example of that is what has recently happened in relation to close contact cases, in that we have gone from seven days' mandatory quarantine for those people, and we have transitioned that to now being five positive rapid antigen tests, mask wearing and restrictions around high-risk settings. That is not an element in which you could easily just cross out one element. You need to replace it with other elements, hence the need for some flexibility in relation to those two very particular types.

Ms PRATT: Would the Chief Public Health Officer still have the power to issue directions in relation to COVID-19 under part 11 of the Public Health Act?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The short answer is yes, but essentially this is what we spent a lot of time looking at. The reason why that has not been used is that in a practical sense it is likely to be problematic. Essentially, the Chief Public Health Officer would need to issue individual directions to people, and each of those individual directions would be subject to people being able to appeal those individual directions, which clearly is very different from the way we have been managing COVID-19. Particularly now that we have been managing thousands of cases a day, it would be entirely impractical for that to occur. Hence, there needs to be some standardisation of what the rules are in relation to people who contract COVID-19, which the existing section would not provide for. However, technically it would still be possible but unlikely.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Since it is her first time, I will let the member for Frome have one more.

Ms PRATT: On indulgence, Mr Acting Chair, I know it is not a supplementary, but it links into the previous question: what weight does the advice of the Chief Public Health Officer have on the decisions of the emergency management committee?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: A very strong weight, obviously. I think everybody in South Australia really appreciates and commends the advice of the Chief Public Health Officer in the work that she has done where she has been advising the State Coordinator. That has, as I have said, followed a number of different processes over the past two years: initially directly, then the Transition Committee was involved, then there have been directions committees formed at various times, then there has been the COVID-19 committee, but at each stage, legally, it has been the State Coordinator making those decisions, with advice, obviously, from the Chief Public Health Officer. Very clearly, the Chief Public Health Officer's advice is strongly weighed in terms of cabinet's deliberations of all matters and the Emergency Management Council's deliberation of all matters. We entirely value the work she has done.

Mr TEAGUE: Minister, would the section 90B directions be the subject of the objects and principles of the act?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): I remind members that questions should be directed through the Chair.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Yes is the answer.

Mr TEAGUE: Chair, would the section 14 principles apply to the new part 11A; if not, why not?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: As you will see in new section 90E, under paragraph (a) there is a modification in relation to the principles of sections 14(6), (7) and (9). To correct my earlier answer, those principles do not apply to part 11A, in relation to those principles. This has been the subject of legal advice in relation to looking at the directions that are in place because we know now what sort of things we are looking at. The legal advice relates to whether there is a risk of a challenge, essentially, as to whether those principles would likely rise to a challenge under those.

I have to say, I think the Chief Public Health Officer's view was she considers all the principles of the act in her decision-making and would weigh that up. But we certainly have had views expressed in advice we have received that making a change to those specific principles would help to make the parliament's intent clear, to make it clear particularly in regard to the individual liberty elements of the principles, and that we could continue with the directions that are in place as those baseline restrictions and it would not put the government and the health response up to a potential legal challenge.

Mr TEAGUE: What appeal rights do individuals have in relation to isolation or quarantine under those section 90B directions?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Essentially the same that would be in place under the emergency management directions, which would be judicial review to the Supreme Court.

Mr PISONI: Are you able to provide the definition of a body corporate and whether it includes strata corporations formed to manage the shared facilities within a block of flats or an apartment building, for example, and also whether it would include any legal structure for amateur sporting clubs, hobby clubs or other clubs in that definition of a body corporate?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Thank you to the member for Unley. Essentially, this is going to be consistent with what has been in place under the Emergency Management Act, which has been in place for the last two years the member for Unley has been sitting around the cabinet table. In relation to the body corporate, though, in the context of the baseline provisions that we are dealing with, it is likely to be relatively limited in terms of who potentially likely would be involved, because we are either looking at high-risk settings such as in aged care, disability, etc. or we are looking at individuals in terms of COVID-19 positive or close contact.

The advice I have received is body corporate is meant to be broad in terms of different types of organisations that could fit under that. That is consistent with what has been in place under the Emergency Management Act. However, within the context of what has been provided here, it is likely to be quite specific in that those high-risk settings are where it is likely to be corporations rather than individuals who would be involved.

Mr PISONI: The question was whether stratas that are corporations that are set up for the management of residential properties are included or captured within the body corporate and whether those amateur sporting clubs are captured in the body corporate and, if so, whether the presiding officer, for example, which usually is a person who is a resident rather than a tenant or an owner with tenants of that strata organisation, would take on responsibilities of managing decisions at the annual strata meetings that are made. Would they be captured in this act?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Once again, the minister had been around the cabinet table for the past two years when similar provisions had been in place under the Emergency Management Act. Firstly, it is an incredible credit to SAPOL for the very sensible way in which restrictions have been enforced in that we have not had a heavy-handed approach, which I think the member for Unley is trying to lead us down the garden path of with sporting club presidents and things like that.

However, once again, you have to look at the context of the act. It is broad in terms of different corporations. A strata corporation, as I understand, could be a body corporate. However, you talk about a sporting club. I am not sure that there are many amateur football clubs that are running aged-care facilities where these requirements would be in place, or netball clubs that are running disability accommodation centres or tennis clubs that are running hospitals, so it is quite limited in terms of the applicability because it only applies to where we have directions in place.

Those are now a lot more limited than the past two years in which the member was part of the cabinet, where there were not restrictions in terms of hospitality capacity, those sorts of requirements, which will not be a feature under this legislation unless there was to be a future emergency down the track.

Mr PISONI: I find it extraordinary that the minister is not able to define a body corporate in his own bill. The other question I have relates to how an emergency officer:

…may require a person who the officer reasonably suspects has committed, is committing or is about to commit, an offence against this Part to state the person's full name and usual place of residence and to produce evidence of the person's identity.

A person must immediately comply under the subsection. There is a maximum penalty of $5,000. What happens if they refuse? How do they receive that fine if that information is not obtained, or is there a method in which the person is encouraged to give that information? Can you explain what the process would be in gaining that information if it was refused?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Once again, this provision is entirely consistent with what has been in place and operational for the past two years under the Emergency Management Act, for which the member for Unley was sitting around the cabinet table, so I am sure he would know what the practice was of the operation of that over the past two years. What we are seeking to do is to bring these matters into the South Australian Public Health Act, in which they can be baseline COVID-19 protections that we can have in place for the next six months.

I am happy to get some further information between the houses. I will express to SAPOL the member for Unley's interest in whether or not they have used this provision and, if so, how they have used the provision. However, it is entirely consistent with what has been in place for the past two years. I, for one, think that SAPOL have done an exceptional job in making sure that they, as well as other authorised officers, such as health officers etc., have used those powers sparingly, have used those powers in an educative way rather than what we might have seen—and what I think some other states have seen—in terms of more heavy-handed approaches.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to section 90D, who does the minister need to consult with in issuing a gazettal notice in regard to the expiry of directions? For instance, does the minister need to consult with the Chief Public Health Officer, and is this a matter that goes back to cabinet prior to a gazettal and the removal of restrictions?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: This is also entirely consistent with what we saw under the COVID-19 emergency measures bill, where this was an ability that I think the Attorney-General had, to turn off particular elements. I think that worked quite successfully and there were a number of elements of that legislation that 'turned off' as they were not required over time.

What we sought to do here is to enable a similar provision where elements of the directions can be 'turned off' for lack of a better phrase—I am sure there is a technical legal way of saying it—over time to make sure that we do not have in place things that we no longer need in the management of the pandemic. I am sure that the former Attorney-General, the member for Bragg, in her consideration of them likely consulted cabinet. I certainly will be consulting through Emergency Management Council and certainly, absolutely, with the Chief Public Health Officer before making any decisions under that.

Mr COWDREY: Can the minister explain why he has chosen a six-month time frame for the expiry of directions under the legislation, and would the government be open to considering a shorter time frame?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: We have consulted with the Chief Public Health Officer, and she and I were both of the view that we needed to put a limit on this to make sure that parliament were involved. I think she nominated the six months, if I recall, which I certainly was happy with.

If we went much shorter, I think the issue is we would basically need to start the process of extending it pretty quickly after it came into operation, particularly because I suspect that parliament would want a longer period of consultation, given the start of parliament this first time. So you would almost be at the process of starting to extend the bill just as you introduce the bill.

I think six months gives us more of an opportunity to have a proper, good look at how it has been operating, to see whether or not we do need particular sections and to see where we are up to in the management of the pandemic, which may well lead to whether we need to continue it at all and, if so, whether or not it is in a substantially different form. I think if it was just three months, we would be pretty much starting the work on bringing something back straight away and it would be in exactly the same form.

Mr COWDREY: Just to clarify: it was on advice from the Chief Public Health Officer, the six-month time frame. As just one more matter of clarification in regard to the first answer, was there consultation with the Chief Public Health Officer? You mentioned in passing that she may be consulted, but is there a requirement for consultation with the Chief Public Health Officer prior to the removal of—

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: It is not specifically explicit in the legislation because what I asked the department and parliamentary counsel to do was do exactly the same as the previous government had done in the previous COVID-19 emergency bill, and so this is, with some variations I am sure, a similar process that was in place there. However, I am absolutely willing to give a commitment in terms of the need for consultation and would absolutely be doing that.

Mr COWDREY: Sorry, that was clarification.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Alright, member for Colton, one more if it is quick.

Mr COWDREY: I have always been very generous, Mr Brown.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): That is not what I remember.

Mr COWDREY: Does the section 90D expiry provision apply to all directions under 90B, including those directions which are deemed to be directions under 90B by virtue of schedule 1, clause 2? Sorry, that was a very wordy explanation.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: You had me, but my advisers tell me the answer is yes, so I will believe it.

Clause passed.

Schedule.

Ms PRATT: Does the government anticipate that a public health incident or public health emergency will or may be declared in the foreseeable future?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Professor Spurrier always talks about the crystal ball in COVID-19 management. No-one knows the answer to that. I think we have to be prepared for all eventualities. It is plain for everybody to see that we are going to see continual variants of COVID-19, and variants by and large will be more transmissible because, to take over from the other variants, they will have a genetic advantage compared with the previous variant. The question is, therefore, whether they are more severe or not, and that is the unknown factor. The other unknown factor is whether vaccinations hold up.

We have some excellent vaccines that have held up exceptionally well. The evidence is quite clear that if you are vaccinated you are much less likely to be in hospital, you are much less likely to pass away. Even with Omicron, which was more resistant to the vaccines than other strains, we have seen that a third dose provides a significant improvement upon people's ability to combat Omicron. No-one can say in terms of what is likely to happen in the future. There is the possibility that either an emergency under the Public Health Act or an emergency under the Emergency Management Act may well be required in the future.

Ms PRATT: Do the State Coordinator and SAPOL support proposed clause 3 of the schedule?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Yes.

Ms PRATT: What changes in SAPOL staffing to the COVID-19 response are expected if this bill is passed?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I will have to refer that question to the Minister for Police, but I think it is safe to say that COVID-19 has had a very significant impact upon SA Police staffing, particularly when we were in the situation where significant border controls were required and also the situation where significant quarantine arrangements were involved. I guess the third element was when significant levels of inspections and checking on people and businesses was required as well. Largely, all of those three elements are not being used by SAPOL at the moment. To some extent, there is some enforcement action is still happening, but at a lower level than what previously was in place. I think we have just Tom's Court left as our quarantine facility at the moment.

Where SAPOL have been doing lots of work, in the terms of their policy work, Dr Lease and the assistant commissioner probably have daily if not hourly contacts on a whole range of matters. Their COVID-19 team has been set up to be able to manage a lot of the support to the State Coordinator.

SAPOL continue to have an important emergency management function and, from my understanding, the assistant commissioner, who has been running the COVID-19 response, is in the longer term going to be the emergency management head as well. It is not as though there is not going to be an important role that SAPOL plays in terms of emergency management, of which pandemics are part of that, but certainly I think it is safe to say that the changes of where we were three, six, nine or 12 months ago compared with now have been a significant release in terms of the pressure on SAPOL that have allowed many frontline officers to return to ordinary policing as well as less pressure in terms of protective security officers and other elements of the SAPOL workforce.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.J. PICTON (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (18:36): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.