Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills South Australian Public Health Bill SOUTH AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC HEALTH BILL Committee Stage Committee Stage In committee. (Continued from 10 March 2011.) Clauses 91 to 109 passed. New clause 110. The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK Legislative Council The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: By leave, I move my amendment in an amended form: Page 70, after line 39—Insert: 110—Review of Act (1)	The Social Development Committee of Parliament must review the operation of this act as soon as practicable after the expiry of five years from its commencement. (2)	The Social Development Committee must ensure that, as part of the review, reasonable steps are taken to seek submissions from— (a)	State agencies that have an interest in public health; and (b)	the local government sector; and (c)	relevant industry, health and community organisations, (but may otherwise conduct the review in such manner as it thinks fit under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991). This amendment is to conduct a review of the act. This has been a contentious issue for a number of parties represented in this chamber, so we think it would be sensible to conduct a review. The proposal is that the Social Development Committee will conduct the review five years after this legislation commences. I commend the amendment to the Legislative Council. The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government accepts the amendment moved in an amended form. The proposal of a review is supported as it will be important to ensure any legislation is operating as intended and that unintended consequences are appropriately addressed. I thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink for raising the issue of a need for a review of the legislation. The government believes it is a useful and appropriate suggestion and is obviously happy to support it. The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD Legislative Council The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I place on the record that Family First supports it as well. As the Hon. Ms Lensink said, it has been contentious in parts and a review is therefore a wise addition. New clause inserted. Schedule 1. The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move: Clause 4, page 71, after line 20—Insert: (2)	Section 24A—after its present contents (as amended by subclause (1) and now to be designated as subsection (1)) insert: (2)	However, if— (a)	an identified major incident or a major emergency relates to circumstances that are or have been the subject of a declaration under Part 11 of the South Australian Public Health Act 2010; and (b)	a person is subject to a direction, or series of directions, under section 25(2) of this Act— (i)	that the person be isolated or segregated from other persons; or (ii)	that the person must remain in a particular place; and (c)	the direction has effect, or the series of directions together have effect, for a period exceeding 24 hours, then the direction or directions will be taken to be a direction or directions that are subject to a right of review under section 90(5), (6), (7), (8) and (10) of the South Australian Public Health Act 2010 and to section 90(11) to (15) (inclusive) of the Act with respect to a right of appeal (and those provisions apply in relation to any such direction under this Act as if they formed part of this Act but subject to any prescribed modifications). This is a change to the schedule which would ensure that, if powers were to be exercised under the Emergency Management Act in relation to a public health emergency, they would be subject to the same review provisions as apply in the South Australian Public Health Act per se. It is merely a device to ensure that it would not be possible to circumvent the protections under the South Australian Public Health Act by using the Emergency Management Act in relation to an emergency which has been authorised under the South Australian Public Health Act. In that sense, one could say it is consequential, but I was just explaining the need for it as a related matter. The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government sees it as a consequential type of amendment. We oppose it for the reasons that we have already outlined. Rather than delay this matter in the council any longer, the government will be opposing it but will not be dividing on it. The committee divided on the amendment: AYES (13) Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Franks, T.A. Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. Parnell, M. Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G. (teller) NOES (7) Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. (teller) Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. Hunter, I.K. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C. Majority of 6 for the ayes. Amendment thus carried; schedule as amended passed. Title passed. Bill reported with amendment. Bill recommitted. Clause 14. The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move: Page 12, after line 4—After paragraph (c) insert: (ca)	to be allowed to decide freely for himself or herself on an informed basis whether or not to undergo medical treatment or, in a case involving a child under the age of 16 years, to have his or her parent or guardian allowed to decide freely on an informed basis whether or not the child should undergo medical treatment; and I will speak briefly because I acknowledge the fact that the Hon. Ann Bressington raised the issue of maintaining a focus on the rights of the individual in relation to whether or not they receive treatment. I acknowledge the work of the minister, with the minister in the other place, to come up with a workable enhancement to the principles in clause 14 of this bill which, as I understand it, will satisfy the various concerns around the table. So I thank the Hon. Ann Bressington and the government, in particular. The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment. The amendment inserts a further principle into clause 14 to offer additional guidance to those exercising powers and making decisions under parts 10 and 11 of the bill. In particular, it offers guidance concerning the conscientious objections of persons where the possibility of compulsory treatment is judged to be necessary. While the government's position is that this issue is already covered by the principles already contained within clause 14, we certainly are willing to support this amendment if it is the will of the council so as, obviously, to put the matter beyond any doubt whatsoever. Amendment carried; clause as further amended passed. Bill reported with amendment. Third Reading Third Reading The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises) (16:49): I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Bill read a third time and passed.