Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 May 2025.)

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (16:07): I indicate that I am the lead speaker on this bill, and I rise to speak. This bill amends the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act 2007 to make sure that offenders who bite or spit on police officers or other emergency workers can be compelled to undergo blood testing for communicable diseases. It is intended to give greater support to those who put themselves in harm's way for the community, and I indicate from the outset that the Liberal Party will be supporting it.

The party has considered issues of violence against emergency workers before. In 2019, the then Marshall Liberal government and Attorney-General the Hon. Vickie Chapman introduced the Criminal Law Consolidation (Assaults on Prescribed Emergency Workers) Amendment Act. That act created specific offences for assaults on emergency workers acting in the course of their duties. Those laws have been important. Since their introduction, more than 2,700 defendants have been charged under those provisions. That figure demonstrates the scale of the problem.

Our frontline emergency workers continue to face violence and aggression as part of their daily work. The bill before us today builds on those early reforms. The types of conduct we are talking about, spitting and biting, are deeply confronting. They are degrading acts and, for the person on the receiving end, they cause far more than momentary distress.

The impact is not only physical but there is also the psychological toll that comes from fear of contracting a serious disease such as HIV or hepatitis. Even when the risk of transmission is low, the anxiety during that period before test results can be confirmed is significant. It affects not only the worker but their entire family.

The bill makes several changes to address those concerns. Firstly, it expands the definition of a prescribed emergency worker. In addition to existing frontline emergency workers, the bill also expands the definition to include police security officers, registered health practitioners in hospitals, and those employed under the Correctional Services Act or the Youth Justice Administration Act. These are people who also face risks in the course of their work and deserve the same protections.

Secondly, the bill removes the requirement that actual harm must have occurred before the blood test can be authorised. It recognises that the risk of exposure and the fear that follows can itself cause harm. Thirdly, it updates the definition of 'prescribed serious offence' and includes the specific offences introduced in 2019 dealing with assaults on emergency workers and the deliberate use of biological material.

Finally, the bill replaces section 20B of the act. Where the conditions are met, and the worker makes a request, authorisation for testing will no longer be discretionary. It will be mandatory. At the same time, the bill preserves the existing safeguard for protected persons—children and people unable to understand the nature and consequences of forensic procedure—so that vulnerable individuals are not unfairly subject to it.

The Liberal Party has always stood with our frontline workers—we did while in government and we do so now. We value their service and we recognise the dangers they face every day in protecting the public. When a police officer, a nurse or a youth justice worker is spat on or bitten, they should not be left with the uncertainty about what might have been transmitted. They deserve clarity, reassurance and a process that puts their wellbeing first.

The parliament has a responsibility to back those who put themselves in the frontline for the community. This bill does that, and the opposition is pleased to support it. This legislation sends a clear message that spitting on or biting our frontline workers will not be tolerated. It ensures that when such conduct occurs, the law will back the worker, not the offender. It is about giving peace of mind to those who serve. It is about ensuring that the police officer, the paramedic, the nurse or the youth justice worker can continue their duties without the added burden of uncertainty hanging over them, if they are unfortunately victims of such an action. With those remarks, I commend the bill to the house.

Ms HUTCHESSON (Waite) (16:12): I rise today to speak in support of the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing) Amendment Bill 2024, a bill that delivers on our election commitment to keep our frontline emergency workers safe. The central purpose of this bill is to mandate blood testing of individuals who spit on or bite police officers and other emergency service workers where a request is made by that affected worker. This is about protecting those who protect us—our police officers, our paramedics, nurses, corrections officers and many others—who face not only the daily risk of physical harm but the psychological trauma that can result from biological exposure in the line of duty.

In 2015, the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing for Diseases) Amendment Bill 2015, an election commitment of the then Labor Party, was introduced and passed. Prior to that date, there were circumstances where an emergency worker was exposed to bodily fluids capable of transmitting an infectious disease and there was no means by which to compel the individual to provide a blood sample for the purpose of testing for infectious diseases.

The 2015 amendment and the now current law provides that any offender who is reasonably suspected of having committed a specified offence of violence against a police officer or other stated category of emergency worker can be compelled to undertake a blood test to test for the presence of infectious diseases where that emergency worker was exposed to the offender's bodily fluids and there is risk that the emergency worker in being so exposed could have contracted an infectious disease. The 2015 amendment also extended protection from just police officers to other categories of emergency workers who were at risk of contracting infectious diseases owing to the violence inflicted on them in the course of their duties.

In the current law, however, the power to authorise blood testing rests with a senior police officer, and it is discretionary. That discretion is guided only by internal South Australia Police policies rather than clear statutory requirements. The Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing) Amendment Bill removes that ambiguity. Under new section 20B, where an affected worker requests testing within the statutory timeframe, the senior police officer must authorise the procedure, subject only to the exclusion of protected persons such as minors or individuals incapable of understanding the procedure. This ensures that no worker is left wondering whether they will receive the support they need after a traumatic exposure.

This is not about punishment; it is about peace of mind and timely medical intervention. It is about answering quickly and conclusively the terrifying question that runs through the mind of an emergency responder who has been spat on or bitten: have I just been infected with something deadly? The origins of this bill lie in our policy document 'Keeping our police safe: For the future'. In that document, we promised to implement mandatory blood tests for those who assault police by spitting or biting. In a pandemic or post-pandemic environment, the fear of infection from communicable diseases—be it hepatitis B, hepatitis C, HIV or others—has only deepened. The stress and anxiety caused by biological exposure is real, persistent and unjustifiable.

This bill provides certainty and structure where previously there was discretion and some confusion, and it builds in appropriate safeguards. A senior officer is still empowered to authorise testing outside the mandatory scope in cases where a request is late or where circumstances demand discretion. Where a worker has taken the initiative to request testing promptly, the authorisation will be automatic.

Following extensive consultation, this bill goes further. It expands the definition of 'prescribed employment' to better reflect the modern landscape of emergency service provision. Under the amendments, the scope now includes non-emergency ambulance personnel; police security officers; youth justice officers and training centre staff; registered health practitioners in hospitals—not just doctors and nurses but also physiotherapists, radiographers and more; and other workers who may be added by regulation, ensuring the framework remains responsive and adaptive into the future. This is not just about protecting our police. It is about safeguarding the broader emergency response and healthcare workforce across South Australia.

The bill also updates the definition of 'prescribed serious offence', ensuring it captures modern and relevant forms of biological assault. These include new offences in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, such as intentionally causing human biological material to come into contact with another person. These are disgusting, cowardly acts, and they must be met with some serious legal consequences and serious procedural safeguards for those who are affected.

We have also supported two amendments from the Hon. Mr Simms that enhance clarity and fairness. Amendment No. 1 inserts a clear statement of purpose at the start of new section 20B. It makes explicit that the procedure is solely for detecting communicable diseases through blood samples. This ensures transparency and avoids any misuse or misunderstanding of the procedure.

Amendment No. 2 introduces flexibility to the seven-day timeframe for worker requests. If a worker is injured or otherwise incapacitated, they can still make a request within six months, and the authorising officer retains discretion. This ensures compassion and common sense are built into the process without compromising its integrity. Importantly, we are inserting a note into section 28 of the act to confirm that a procedure authorised under the new section is a 'suspects procedure' under part 3 of the act, making the law clearer and more navigable for those administering it.

At its core, this bill is about respect: respect for the sacrifices our frontline workers make every single day. These are individuals who willingly walk into danger, chaos and trauma, often to pull others out of it. The least we can do in return is to provide them with legal protections that are robust, reliable and fair. Assaulting an emergency worker is a serious criminal act, but spitting or biting—particularly in the context of communicable disease transmission—are an affront not only to the individual but to the community as a whole. These are acts that must be met with swift legal authority and immediate medical clarity.

I would like to acknowledge how hard our first responders work to protect the community. They deserve peace of mind, all the peace of mind we can give them, when they know that they may have been exposed to transmissible disease. Medical practitioners, nurses and midwives in our hospitals and those who work or volunteer in our emergency services are equally deserving of the potential peace of mind this measure may bring. They also work extremely hard to ensure the health and safety of our community. This bill reflects the values of a government that backs its frontline workers. It honours our clear election promise and provides the tools our emergency workers need to feel safe, respected and supported. I commend the bill to the house.

S.E. ANDREWS (Gibson) (16:19): I rise today to speak in support of the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing) Amendment Bill 2024, a critical and timely piece of legislation that delivers on a commitment made by this government to the people of South Australia and in particular to our frontline emergency service workers. This bill is the direct result of a key election commitment made by the South Australian Labor government as part of its policy platform of 'keeping our police safe for the future'. That commitment was simple and uncompromising. If you spit on or bite a police officer, paramedic, nurse, firefighter or other emergency responder, you will be compelled to provide a blood sample for testing.

Every day emergency service workers put themselves in harm's way to protect our community. They attend dangerous incidents, de-escalate violence, treat the injured, and respond to crises with professionalism and compassion. But increasingly these workers face unacceptable abuse, particularly in the form of deliberate acts such as spitting and biting. These actions are not only degrading and traumatic but they also carry the real risk of disease transmission, including HIV, hepatitis B and C and other bloodborne viruses. The emotional toll on affected workers, who may have to wait weeks or months to know whether or not they have been infected, is immense and enduring.

Prior to this bill, there was no clear mechanism to compel offenders to undergo blood testing in these situations, leaving frontline workers in a cruel and unnecessary state of medical uncertainty. This bill changes that. The SA Labor policy document 'Keeping our police safe for the future' recognised that the growing number of assaults on police and emergency workers demanded not only tougher penalties but also practical legislative tools to protect their physical and psychological wellbeing.

This bill gives effect to a key policy proposal in that document. We will introduce legislation to allow for compulsory blood testing of individuals who deliberately bite or spit on police and emergency workers, so affected personnel can get answers quickly about potential exposure to disease. That promise was made in good faith to our emergency workers, to unions representing those workers and to the wider community, who expect that assaults on frontline staff will be met with swift, sensible legal consequences. Today, through this bill, we honour that promise.

This bill would not exist without the tireless and passionate advocacy of South Australia's trade unions, particularly those representing emergency service personnel. The Police Association of South Australia has long called for a clear legal mechanism to support officers assaulted in the line of duty. They have made it unequivocally clear that officers who are spat on or bitten should not be left in limbo while waiting for test results. Their advocacy on this issue has been consistent and deeply rooted in the lived experience of their members.

The Ambulance Employees Association and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation have similarly stood up for paramedics and nurses who are frequently exposed to violent or abusive behaviour in high-pressure environments. These unions have been instrumental in ensuring that the bill applies not only to police but to all emergency service workers because no frontline worker should be treated as expendable. The United Firefighters Union and representatives of Correctional and child protection staff also added their voices to the call, recognising that this is a cross-sector issue affecting all corners of our public safety infrastructure. These unions have provided real-world case studies, expert advice and legal insight that shaped the bill before us. They have done more than advocate. They have co-designed a legislative framework that is just, proportionate and workable.

The Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing) Bill empowers senior police officers to authorise the taking of a blood sample from a person reasonably suspected of biting or spitting on a prescribed emergency service worker during the course of their duties. Key elements include: mandatory blood testing authorised without consent in cases of assault involving spitting or biting; applicability to a broad range of emergency workers, including police, ambulance officers, nurses, doctors, child protection staff, corrections officers, firefighters and SES volunteers; strict procedural safeguards, including time limits on testing, qualified medical collection and rights of review; provisions to safeguard the privacy and dignity of both the alleged offender and the emergency service worker; and clear pathways for victims to access the test results quickly so that early treatment or intervention can be sought if necessary.

This bill has been developed in consultation with unions, health professionals, including infectious disease experts, and privacy and legal experts to ensure compliance with human rights and due process. Their input has helped shape a law that is firm, fair and fit for purpose, a law that respects the rights of all parties while placing the health and welfare of our frontline workers first.

This bill is not about punishment, it is about safety, certainty, and peace of mind. It is about preventing psychological harm to workers who, through no fault of their own, are forced to live in fear of infection after an assault. The legislation is carefully designed to balance the rights of the accused with the rights of workers. It includes appropriate oversight and mechanisms to ensure that it is not misused. But at its heart is a simple truth: workers deserve to be protected from health threats as much as they do from physical violence.

This bill sends a strong and unambiguous message that assaults on emergency workers will not be tolerated, and where such assaults involve spitting or biting we will act quickly to protect those who serve our community. This bill is a clear example of what can be achieved when government and trade unions work together in the interests of working people. It fulfills an election promise. It honours the experience and advocacy of our unions, and it delivers practical change for the better. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (16:26): I rise today to speak in support of the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing) Amendment Bill 2024, a bill that delivers on a clear election commitment from the Malinauskas Labor government to better protect those who protect us.

Across our state, emergency service workers, police officers, paramedics, nurses, security officers, and corrections staff turn up each day not knowing what challenges they will face. What they do know is that their safety cannot be taken for granted. While it is tragic that legislation like this is necessary, it absolutely is, because behind every clause in this bill is a real person, a real story, a real moment of fear, distress and trauma.

I recently met with a local police officer who patrols the southern suburbs and is well known in our community. A few months ago, during a routine call-out to assist a distressed person, she was spat on, directly in the face. At first she kept her cool, finished the job and did everything by the book. But later, sitting alone at Flinders emergency waiting for her blood test results, the reality hit her. She was thinking, 'What if I just contracted something? What will I tell my partner? What about my kids?' No-one signs up to wear the uniform expecting to face that kind of uncertainty, not because of the nature of the work itself but because of the violent, degrading actions of others.

This bill is about restoring a sense of control and dignity to workers like her. It strengthens the law to ensure that if you spit on or bite an emergency service worker you will be required, not optionally requested, to undergo a blood test if the affected worker asks for it. That request will not be subject to a discretionary process; it will be mandated under law. This is not about punishment, it is about peace of mind, about alleviating the waiting game, and about protecting the mental wellbeing of workers who are already giving so much.

Importantly, the bill also expands the categories of workers who can request a blood test in these circumstances, because it is not just frontline police officers at risk, it is paramedics, it is nurses, corrections staff, youth justice officers, hospital pharmacists and even security personnel assisting with detainees under the Mental Health Act. In fact, in my own electorate I have heard from paramedics who have worked for St John and the Royal Flying Doctor Service, those who operate on the frontline of crisis in regional and remote areas.

One described an incident when a patient under the influence lashed out in the back of an ambulance. He was bitten. He did not report it at the time because he did not want to make a fuss but he spent weeks worrying in silence and that is just not okay. This bill means that if that same incident happened today and that paramedic chose to request a test, that request would have legal weight. It would not rely on internal discretion, it would be acted upon.

The legislation also reflects modern realities by expanding the list of applicable offences. No longer will outdated definitions or technicalities prevent a frontline worker from getting the answers that they need. It also allows for future categories of workers to be added via regulation, ensuring we can keep up with emerging roles and risks as the nature of emergency and healthcare work continues to evolve.

To be clear, this is not about removing safeguards. There remain appropriate exemptions, such as where the alleged offender is a child or person unable to understand the nature of the procedure. This is a carefully considered bill that strikes the right balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the worker placed at risk. I want to acknowledge the police officers, ambos, hospital workers and correctional staff across my electorate of Davenport who have spoken to me about this important issue. I know this change matters to you and I want you to know that we have listened. I also want to thank the Minister for Police and the Attorney-General for the work done to bring this bill to the floor, including the extensive consultation process that helped strengthen and clarify its provisions.

At the heart of this bill is a simple principle: no worker should be left in limbo after being assaulted with biological material. The fear of communicable disease, especially in the wake of COVID, has only heightened and we owe it to our emergency service workforce to give them the tools and the reassurance that they need. What often gets lost in discussions about legislation like this is the long tail of psychological harm.

It is not just the act of being spat on or bitten, it is the anxiety that follows, the sleepless nights, the Google searches, and the silent dread while waiting for results. I have had healthcare workers quietly admit they did not tell their families about an incident because they did not want to cause worry. They just carried it on alone. That is not sustainable and it is not fair. This bill gives those workers a tangible way to begin the process of reassurance and recovery.

To those who say this bill is heavy handed, I ask you to consider the trauma of waiting days or even weeks to know whether you have been exposed to something serious. To those who say it is unnecessary, I urge you to spend a day on the job with one of our paramedics or correctional officers. This legislation is not theoretical: it is real, it is urgent and it is long overdue. We have relied too long on internal policy to manage these situations, but policies can shift, they can be inconsistently applied and they can leave workers guessing.

That is why this bill matters. It turns a discretionary process into a legal right for the people on the frontline and it provides consistency and certainty so that when something traumatic happens, there is no ambiguity about what can be done next. Workers should not have to fight for a process; they should be able to rely on it.

The people of South Australia value fairness, they value decency and they expect that those who keep us safe will be protected in return. This legislation reflects those values. It is a measured response, carefully designed and informed by real-world experience. It sends a strong message that spitting on a nurse or biting a police officer is not just abhorrent, it comes with consequences and it ensures those consequences are not just punitive but practical, focused on protecting health and restoring peace of mind. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr BROWN (Florey) (16:33): I am pleased to rise in support of the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing) Amendment Bill. This bill seeks to deliver on an election commitment by the Malinauskas Labor government to legislate to compel offenders who bite or spit on South Australian police officers or emergency workers to undergo blood testing for communicable diseases.

It is unfortunately the case that police and other emergency workers, in the course of undertaking their crucially important work across our community, are sometimes subject to incidents in which they are bitten or spat upon. This is deplorable behaviour, but regrettably it does occur and there is a potential for ongoing consequences to arise from such incidents. For this reason, it is important that we act to ensure that the laws of our state enable appropriate support for workers who become subject to assaults of this kind.

Section 20AA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act includes, under existing arrangements, specific offences that deal with offenders who assault or cause harm to a prescribed emergency worker who is acting in the course of their official duties. These offences rightly attract significant penalties, reflecting that this type of offending is taken seriously, as it should be. This type of antisocial behaviour puts police and emergency workers at risk. It is completely unacceptable, and it is entirely out of step with the standard of social behaviour that reasonable South Australians expect from one another.

We have seen the figure indicating that, as at 26 February last year, 2,711 defendants have been charged with assaulting or causing harm to emergency workers under those provisions of the act since they came into operation in October 2019. In addition to assaults or harms of this kind potentially giving rise to physical and psychological injury on the part of those who are subject to them, the risk exists for the transmission of a communicable disease. Although it is not typical, it is possible.

When a person is exposed to bloodborne diseases, including HIV or hepatitis B or C, it is possible for a substantial period of time to elapse before an infection becomes detectable in that person's blood. This period between the time of exposure and the time when detection becomes possible, which is sometimes referred to as the window period, can last for several months. Understandably, police and emergency workers who have been exposed to biological material in the course of their work may experience high levels of stress and anxiety during this so-called window period.

The aim of this bill is to ensure that workers who have been subject to incidents involving exposure to biological material are able to make the choice to ascertain in a timely manner whether they have been exposed to a communicable disease. The intention is that these reforms will support such workers to avoid the anxiety that may be experienced during the window period, as well as to make informed and timely healthcare decisions.

The bill seeks to build on existing provisions in division 4 of part 2 of the Criminal Law Forensic Procedures Act 2007, which provide a mechanism for a senior police officer, who is referred to as the 'authorising officer', to authorise the taking of blood from a person who assaults a police officer or other emergency services worker. Section 20B(1) of the act currently gives the authorising officer a discretion to authorise the taking of blood samples from a person who is suspected of a prescribed serious offence if the authorising officer is satisfied that it is likely a person engaged in prescribed employment came into contact with or was otherwise exposed to the suspect's biological material as a result of a suspected offence.

Relevant definitions, including those of a prescribed serious offence and prescribed employment, are laid out in section 20A of the act. The bill proposes to delete section 20B of the act and to substitute new section 20B, the key changes of which are contained in subsections (1)(a), (2) and (3). Under new section 20B(2), if the person engaged in prescribed employment requests authorisation of blood testing within the prescribed time period following the exposure, and in a manner determined by the Commissioner of Police, the authorising officer must grant the request. That time period is seven days or a longer period if the authorising officer considers the person did not have a reasonable opportunity to make the request in that timeframe due to injury or other extenuating circumstances. Such a longer period will not exceed six months.

The authorising officer must still be satisfied that the requirements in section 20B(1) are met before granting the authorisation; that is, the authorising officer must be satisfied that the person from whom the sample is to be taken is suspected of a prescribed serious offence and that, as a result of the person's suspected offending, the affected worker came into contact with or was exposed to the person's biological material. Provided these conditions are met, new subsection (2) provides that the authorising officer must authorise blood testing to be undertaken in accordance with the request of the affected worker.

Under subsection (3), the changes in subsection (2) do not apply if the authorising officer knows that the person on whom the forensic procedure would be carried out is a protected person defined in the act as a child or as a person physically or mentally incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of a forensic procedure. A senior police officer would still retain the existing discretion to authorise blood testing in cases where no request is made by the affected worker or where the authorising officer knows that the person is a protected person.

Within section 20B, a new subsection—which was moved as an amendment to the bill by the Hon. Robert Simms in the other place and which the government has supported—aims to make the purpose of these provisions abundantly clear. Their intention is to facilitate blood testing of a suspect for the purposes of testing for the presence of any communicable disease which may be detected in blood.

The bill also makes changes to some of the definitions contained in section 20A of the act. Firstly, an authorisation under section 20B of the act may only be granted following contact with, or exposure to, biological material by a person in prescribed employment. The bill amends the definition of 'prescribed employment' and the related definition of 'emergency work' in section 20A of the act to include additional categories of workers who perform emergency work or who are understood to be at a similar level of risk of being bitten or spat on.

Under the current provision, the categories of workers include police officers; certain hospital workers, including medical practitioners, nurses and midwives; correctional services workers; and those employed in emergency work in the SA Ambulance Service, the Country Fire Service, the Metropolitan Fire Service, the State Emergency Service, St John's Ambulance, Surf Life Saving SA, Marine Rescue or the accident and emergency department of a hospital.

The bill extends the scope of these provisions to include all persons authorised to provide emergency and non-emergency ambulance services under section 57 and section 58 of the Health Care Act. This will include police and security officers, health practitioners within a hospital, and youth justice officers. The bill also provides a mechanism for further classes of workers to be prescribed by regulation, which enables responsiveness to future need if such need should arise.

I recognise and commend the Police Association of South Australia for its contributions to the development of this bill and more broadly for its commitment to advocating for improvements in the safety and wellbeing of our police officers. This bill, on top of the strengthened criminal penalties already put in place by the Malinauskas government, forms an important part of the broader work that the government is undertaking to improve conditions for police and emergency workers, who are greatly deserving of the support that we as legislators can provide.

They are people whose work crucially underpins the wellbeing and safety of our community. Taking measures to protect their wellbeing and safety in turn is an objective that rightly enjoys broad support in this parliament. I am pleased to commend the bill to the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): The member for—

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (16:41): Badcoe.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Badcoe. It has been a while.

Ms STINSON: Commonly referred to as 'the member for Ashford', but I am the member for Badcoe. I answer to both. I would not say I am thrilled to be speaking on this bill, because it is quite depressing to think that we even need legislation to cater for situations such as this, but I am glad that our government is doing something about it.

I am particularly pleased that this will fulfil an election commitment that the Malinauskas government made at the last election, because obviously we are a government that delivers on our promises. So, once again, this is an example of us delivering on the commitments that we made to the community at the last election.

Mr Acting Speaker, I am sure that quite unfortunately, given your past career as a police officer, you are probably very familiar—more familiar than most in this house—with some of the situations that give rise to this legislation being required. You would be quite familiar with the taxing work that police officers do and the incredible stress and strain they must be under when they do their jobs to the best of their ability to protect others and they find themselves exposed in such vulnerable situations. The rest of us in this place can only imagine what that is like, but I understand that from your hands-on experience in the police workforce you would have direct experience of that.

I am pleased that this bill is not just looking at police, though: it is also looking at other emergency services workers. One of my sisters is a paramedic, so I am pleased that this bill extends to ambulance officers as well as to a range of other workers in our health services: police security officers—who we are very pleased to have the support of in this place to do our work—training centre officers, youth justice officers and correctional services officers.

It is terrible to think that these workers occasionally are forced to put their health and their wellbeing—the welfare of themselves but also their families—in peril because of the actions of others. But that is the world that we live in, and as lawmakers it is our responsibility to make sure that we are taking on their views and their experiences and doing what we can to support them in their very difficult work. I am pleased that there is a great range of individuals on our frontline emergency services who will be covered by this bill should we be so fortunate as to pass it.

One of the key changes here is moving from a discretionary responsibility to the compulsory testing that is required under this bill. Previously, if an individual—a worker—believed that they had come into contact with biological material, they could request of a senior police officer that they conduct a test on an alleged perpetrator to be able to ascertain if that person did have communicable diseases and, of course, what that might mean for the worker in terms of their exposure.

What this bill essentially does is state that that is not an optional extra anymore. That is not something that the worker has to plead their case on, or that a senior officer has the individual discretion to make a decision on. What we are saying as a parliament is that we really do find this situation so appalling that we are willing to infringe on a right—on the bodily autonomy of someone—and compel them to submit to such testing.

I actually think this is quite a serious thing to do, to ask a person to submit to a blood test. There are other circumstances under the law in which that is required, or indeed an alleged offender may have an option to take—for example, in our drink and drug driving testing. However, it is a big step to say that we are compelling someone to do it, essentially saying they do not have a choice whether they submit to it or not.

Of course, there are some caveats and some tests in the bill to be able to protect people, recognising that this can be a vulnerable situation that the alleged perpetrator is in, and I might go into that in more detail in a moment. I do think on balance that what might be regarded as a heavy-handed approach in infringing on the personal liberties of a person is warranted when we are looking at the health and personal liberties of another person who may have been exposed to a communicable disease. I did think long and hard about this bill when it was raised on our side of the house some time ago about whether this is justified and, on balance, unfortunately, I think it is.

The other thing that is worth noting in this bill is that these tests will happen at the request of an affected worker, so it does not mean that a test is automatically applied to an alleged perpetrator. That only occurs when an affected worker requests such a test. What we are removing is the discretion of that senior officer, that authorising officer, to be able to say no to the affected worker. Basically, if an affected worker asks for one of these tests to be conducted—with reasonable grounds—on an alleged offender, then the senior officer must comply with that and must authorise such testing to go ahead.

Some workers may not feel that is necessary, or may not want to go down that path, and they will have the option to not engage in that, although I have to say that if it was me I would certainly be availing myself of the ability to know earlier if I had been exposed to a communicable disease.

At the time we started talking about this—and I know the Police Association were very active in pushing forward this idea and advocating on behalf of their members—of course, we were living in the shadow of COVID and coming off the back of that experience, an experience in which we all learned a great deal. Certainly, at that time, I think it really focused our minds, both as policymakers and also as individuals living in our communities, as to the impacts of communicable diseases, of how they are spread and of the consequences of some of those diseases spreading. For most of us something like COVID was a mere inconvenience, but for others there were life-ending consequences to them contracting COVID.

People who are already vulnerable with pre-existing conditions, people who are older and people who are quite young can all be more susceptible to infection by various diseases than the rest of us. I think that period really highlighted the importance of knowing what we were dealing with and being able to look after ourselves and our loved ones, especially more vulnerable loved ones, if the need arose.

Certainly, this scenario does not only affect the affected worker. They may be the one who contracts a communicable disease, but of course their loved ones—their partners, their children, their elderly relatives—may then have that disease or that condition passed on to them, so I think that this does provide a broader community benefit. Of course, then there is the question of the mental health of the affected worker.

The member for Davenport provided the house with some really valuable insights into what her community has said to her about the incredibly stressful impact of thinking that maybe you have been exposed to something and having to wait an extended period of time for maybe that condition to develop or being subject yourself to a large number of tests but also long periods of waiting before there is any certainty—and sometimes there might not be any certainty—about whether you have come into contact with something that could affect your health or that you may pass on to others. I thank her for her contribution. It certainly added to the experiences and insights that my community have provided me, particularly from those who work in emergency services.

Of course, chief among those understandings, as I mentioned earlier, is that my sister is a paramedic. She was very fortunate to train here but then moved to the UK to work in the London Ambulance Service, and she is back here in Australia again now. Certainly, listening to some of the absolutely petrifying experiences that she has had out on the road fills me with terror, to be honest. I really worry for my sister. She is the most level-headed person I know. She is so calm and so compassionate towards others. Of course, she has an amazing amount of skill and experience now, even though she is still much younger than me, as well as expertise and training. Despite that, I still really worry about her safety out there.

You would think, if a paramedic is called to a situation, that someone is in need and that people would recognise that and be very grateful for the emergency medical assistance that is being provided to them. However, unfortunately, sometimes people are either not in their right mind, they are affected by drugs or alcohol, they have mental health challenges or they are just really not great people who attack our ambulance officers. From time to time there have certainly been cases of spitting, scratching and biting by individuals who paramedics are trying to help, or they are trying to get those people out of the way so that they can help someone in need.

For all of those who have relatives who work in emergency services, I think this bill will come as some tiny comfort to the risk that their loved ones face every day when they go out there and do their jobs, jobs that exist to help us and to make our world a safer place and to assist people in their moment of need.

As I said, the bill has some caveats and tests to, I suppose, limit this great power that we are providing to senior officers to authorise blood tests but also to empower the affected person to be able to take advantage. Some of those tests include limiting this compulsory blood testing to a person who is suspected of a prescribed serious offence. What does that mean? Well, a prescribed serious offence is defined in section 20A of the act and, broadly, it includes various assault and 'cause harm' offences.

You would expect, of course, that a person would be charged with those in the event that they had bitten, spat on, scratched or otherwise hurt an emergency services worker. But it also expands that definition to include causing harm to or assaulting a prescribed emergency worker, contrary to section 20AA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, and also committing a prohibited act by intentionally causing human biological material to come into contact with another person, which is contrary to section 20AB of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

So this is not a free for all. This is quite defined to a certain set of emergency services workers who are on the frontline. Further, it is refined to only relate to those charged with or suspected of, accused of, that fairly narrow set of physical offences, offences against the person. As far as the range of people go who are included in this, emergency work is defined, of course, in relation to police officers, certain hospital workers like doctors, nurses and midwives, and correctional services workers.

But the bill also updates the definition of prescribed employment and the related definition of emergency work. So this bill extends that, gratefully, I say, to persons authorised to provide emergency ambulance services, like my sister, but also non-emergency ambulance services and ambulance services that are run under different legislation to our state Ambulance Service—for example, the Royal Flying Doctor Service, Babcock Mission Critical Services, and the commonwealth Department of Defence.

In addition, it extends to police security officers, who we are very lucky to have look after us here in Parliament House. Very rarely do they have to deal with anything approaching what we are talking about here today, but in the event that they did, and we hope they do not, they would be able to avail themselves of this change to the legislation as well, which of course is a good thing. We are also talking here about training centre employees and youth justice officers who will be added to the definition of emergency work and emergency prescribed employment, as well as people employed in a hospital as a registered health practitioner and in our correctional services facilities.

I, for so many reasons that I have expressed, support this bill. I would hate for the situation to arise for my sister to be bitten or spat on or scraped or injured in some way that could see her exposed to a disease. I cannot imagine the mental strain that would cause her, her partner and her family.

While that in itself is something that we seek to avoid, but unfortunately does happen, I hope that this might bring some comfort to her and her colleagues that we in this place are looking out for them, that we know the difficulties that they face, and we are quite serious about doing all that we can to make sure their working environment is safe, but on the occasion that it is not, that they are supported in every way possible.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (16:58): I am delighted to close the debate for the second reading of this bill. I have in fact learnt much from people while listening to them in the course of their contribution on both sides of the chamber. I have been grateful for the individual stories that have been shared and also the insight about what it is like to work in those environments where one is at more risk of being infected or indeed receiving other injuries and the gratitude, I think, with which this bill will be received by those people.

We do not like to, as governments, generally, create too many pieces of legislation that force interventions in a physical sense on people. We are, as a liberal democracy, loath to put those kinds of requirements on people. But there are instances where the greater good is served and the balance of benefit is served through that kind of intervention, and I think this one has been designed in a very judicious way in order to protect people, to give certainty and security to people, but in a way that is respectful also of all those who are involved. I therefore commend this bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (17:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.