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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 May 2015.)

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN (15:55): I rise to speak on the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing of Diseases) Amendment Bill 2015. This bill fulfils a 2014 state election promise made by the government when it committed to introducing legislation to require an offender who bites or spits at a police officer to undertake a blood test for infectious disease. I point out to the chamber that a similar bill was introduced in 2014; however, that bill lapsed due to the proroguing of parliament.

The previous bill was significantly less comprehensive than the one before us, in that it was only intended to apply to, and protect, police officers. The government reports that approximately 700 police officers are assaulted in the line of duty each year and up to half of them are bitten or spat upon. When considering that bill, the Liberal Party and the crossbench pushed for the application of the bill to be expanded to protect healthcare and other emergency services workers as well as police officers.

To this end, the opposition and the Hon. John Darley filed amendments to the previous bill. We believe that, regardless of their status, all emergency services personnel deserve protection, not just a select group that has the ear of the government. As I pointed out when I spoke on the previous bill, a volunteer cannot decide to no longer volunteer when they are providing a service to a member of the community during which they are assaulted.

The bill that comes before this chamber and the improvements that have been incorporated into it justify our strong stance on this issue. We are further justified in our stance because, last month, it was widely reported that attacks on ambulance officers in South Australia have jumped more than 70 per cent over the past three years.

The reports revealed that there have been 125 incidents in relation to paramedics in this financial year alone, which has prompted a new advertising campaign aimed at reducing aggressive behaviour towards healthcare workers. The violence not only confronts workers in the state's emergency departments but also has an adverse impact on the safety of other patients.

It is difficult to comprehend why the government failed to accommodate paramedics and other emergency service workers in their previous bill. Nevertheless, despite this failing, they have had a 'road to Damascus' moment, and we are pleased that the government has accommodated the opposition's amendments and expanded the bill's application.

The bill amends the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act 2007 to require an offender who bites or spits at a police officer or other emergency worker to undertake a blood test in order to test for infectious diseases. Currently, South Australia Police offers blood testing to any officer who has had contact with an offender's bodily fluid. However, currently, there is no obligation for the offender to be tested, and this is what the bill seeks to amend. Blood testing of offenders will help identify any risk immediately, as it may take weeks for infection to show up as positive in an assaulted police officer or emergency services worker.

The threshold for whether an offender is tested is whether there is a reasonable suspicion that a police officer or other category of emergency worker has been assaulted or the offender has committed other specified offences of violence. Specified offences of violence include assault, causing harm, causing serious harm, an act likely to cause harm, endangering life, riot, affray and violent disorder.

I am extremely pleased that this bill lists amongst the prescribed emergency services providers St John Ambulance Australia, Country Fire Service, Metropolitan Fire Service and Surf Life Saving South Australia, to name a few. As I have indicated, it is critically important that we protect all those who continue to work tirelessly to protect us and make our community safe. All South Australians who make a contribution to the safety and welfare of their fellow citizens deserve to be protected.

In hindsight, the opposition's amendments that were filed with respect to the 2014 bill showed great foresight and a greater appreciation of the dangers that the people in our emergency services face on a day-to-day basis. I am pleased to see that the government has finally acknowledged the need for the protections provided in the bill to be more comprehensive. I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:00): I rise briefly to indicate my support, once again, for the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing for Diseases) Amendment Bill. As members would recall, this bill, which was first adopted by the government last year, is consistent with one introduced in this place by my colleague, Senator Nick Xenophon, back in 2007. In short, that bill provided that, where a person believes that as a result of the commission of an indictable offence he or she may have come into contact with bodily fluid from an offender, the person could request that a person arrested on suspicion of the offence be subject to a medical examination.

The rationale behind the bill was that requiring an offender to undergo a medical examination would go some way towards overcoming the anguish and uncertainty that an affected person would otherwise encounter as a result of having to wait some three to six months for blood tests and results. Although the bill before us is confined only to police officers and emergency workers, I think it is a good starting point. On that note, I am very pleased that the government has seen fit to broaden its scope to cover emergency workers, as opposed to restricting it to only police officers, as originally proposed. I hope that serious consideration will also be given to broadening the scope even further to cover licensed security guards, a measure that I proposed the last time we debated this bill.

It is not acceptable that any person should be the subject of physical or verbal abuse. It is certainly not acceptable that nurses, doctors, ambulance officers and security guards are subjected to punching, spitting and biting in the course of carrying out their duties. This bill will certainly go some way towards addressing the angst that that sort of behaviour results in, at least for police officers and emergency workers. For the record once again, it is my firm position that the government also consider offering the same benefit to licensed security agents. With that, I support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:02): It seems we are all in agreement on this one. I rise to indicate Family First's strong support of this bill. We unfortunately hear stories all too frequently of emergency services workers being assaulted, verbally or physically, in the course of their duties. These employees provide an invaluable service to the community and they deserve every reasonable protection that we can afford them. Assaulting an emergency services worker in the course of their duties is unacceptable, or indeed any worker, and Family First sees this bill as a practical way in which to provide both emergency workers and their families some peace of mind regarding the potential for transference of disease through biological substances.

Currently, SAPOL, and I would assume other emergency service providers as well, has provisions for the testing of their staff who come into contact with bodily fluids but, as has been noted, there is nothing to compel the testing of an offender to determine the risk of exposure to the emergency services worker; that is, they are not currently compelled. There has been some debate regarding the potential of transferring certain diseases orally and of the potential breach of civil rights that this bill may well effect. We have considered these issues and a loss of civil rights is not something that can be easily supported but there are, of course, instances where, on balance, there is a compelling reason to do so. This is one of those instances.

Obtaining a biological sample from someone for the purposes of testing without consent is obviously an invasive process and it may cause the person to become distressed in some circumstances. Conversely, this bill aims to protect emergency services workers in a circumstance where, during the course of their employ, they have potentially come into contact with a communicable disease. There is an inherent risk involved in the work these men and women choose. They are exposed to various forms of violence in the course of their employ, which is disgraceful, and they are exposed to infectious diseases as a matter of course, unfortunately, and also to some other forms of potentially hazardous situations.

Whilst incubation periods for certain diseases can be prolonged, there is, in a sense, an expediency in this process in that it can determine, in some instances, if an offender does have a communicable disease, which would then inform the injured person of possible treatment options and long-term consequences. Time is of the essence. It may also lead to a reduced level of anxiety for the emergency services worker, their friends and family if they are able to get an answer to these questions quickly rather than waiting.

There would of course be instances where the offender was within the incubation period themselves and testing may come back negative despite them going on to develop the disease. This situation would have to be managed effectively for the emergency service worker to ensure that false hope is not given in relation to a clear screening of the offender who has assaulted them. Ineffectively managing this could place the emergency service worker at greater risk.

The current bill continues to require offenders who are suspected of committing a prescribed serious offence to be tested for infectious disease where an emergency service worker has come into contact or been exposed to bodily fluid as a result of the suspected offence, whether the person is in lawful custody or not.

We are advised that the previous version of this bill presented to the parliament in 2014 was on the request of SAPOL. That initial bill was drafted for the benefit of police officers. Whilst that was of course a noble objective and Family First supported it, we welcome the extended definitions of emergency workers who will fall under the provisions in this bill, namely the CFS, the MFS, the SAS, the SAAS, Surf Life Saving, volunteer marine rescue and accident and emergency workers in a hospital.

These inclusions, of course, were put forward as amendments by the Liberal Party and the Hon. Mr Darley last year. We think these amendments are necessary. We supported them then and we support them now. They are necessary to protect those valuable workers who we rely on to provide emergency support and to keep us all as safe as possible. Family First strongly supports this bill.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:06): I rise today to support this bill. Last year, we debated a similar bill. The 2014 bill would have given a senior police officer the ability to order persons suspected of assaulting, causing serious harm or committing an act that endangered the life of a police officer, or other crimes that are later prescribed by regulations, to undergo mandatory blood testing.

Importantly, this bill expands this to enable a senior police officer to order persons suspected of committing these offences against medical practitioners in hospitals, nurses and midwives in hospitals, people providing assistance services to medical practitioners, nurses or midwives in hospital and those carrying out emergency work, either voluntary or paid.

Emergency work under this bill includes work carried out by the CFS, MFS, SES, South Australian Ambulance Service, St John Ambulance South Australia Incorporated, accredited volunteer marine associations and the emergency department of a hospital. This expansion incorporates an amendment the Hon. Andrew McLachlan put forward to the previous bill.

It is important to note that, in both the 2014 bill and the bill before us today, in order for a mandatory blood test to be undertaken, a senior police officer must authorise the test. The senior police officer is also required to record in writing the grounds on which they have ordered the test and provide this to the person to be tested. This provides a safeguard to prevent arbitrary blood testing.

Last year, in my contribution, I acknowledged how hard our police force work to protect the community. I also mentioned that they deserve any peace of mind we can give them when they may have been exposed to a transmittable 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.

I would like to acknowledge the Hon. Andrew McLachlan for his persistence in getting the list expanded to include those occupations and volunteers. He is a tough negotiator but he is fair. I suppose you have to be tough to serve in Afghanistan for Australia.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Courageous.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Courageous, as well.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Soon to be Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: And soon to be Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Kyam Maher says.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The minister is out of order. The Hon. Mr Ngo will continue.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: In 2014 there were numerous media reports of police officers and other emergency service workers being spat on. Last August The Advertiser reported that 77 spitting incidents against SA Health staff—mainly nurses—and 111 against police officers were reported during 2013. It is astounding that anyone would wish to spit on another person, let alone our police and emergency services staff, who help to keep the community healthy and safe.

Although this behaviour is of great concern, commonly held misconceptions about the transmission of certain diseases—including HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C—are also of great concern. In my previous role as an advisor to the Minister for Health I had the opportunity to visit a number of NGOs, including Hepatitis SA, and to speak to health professionals in communicable diseases. From this I learnt much about the transmission of hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV. I have learnt there is virtually zero chance of HIV or hepatitis C being transmitted through saliva; however, there is a common misconception in the community that there is a high risk of these diseases being spread this way.

Hepatitis C and HIV are primarily spread through blood to blood contact. I also learnt that the most common way HIV is transmitted is through unprotected sexual intercourse or through sharing infected needles. Hepatitis B can be contracted through saliva but, as the Hon. Mark Parnell and the Hon. Kelly Vincent pointed out in their second reading contributions on the previous bill, there is a vaccine for hepatitis B which our police force and emergency service workers generally receive. I am told that currently there are no treatments or vaccine to prevent hepatitis C.

It is also important to again acknowledge that such a test will not always be able to provide peace of mind, due to the window period before HIV and hepatitis C show up in a blood test. As such, it is still important for a person who has potentially been exposed to a blood-borne disease to undergo a risk assessment by a health professional. Depending on the outcome of the risk assessment, the health professional may determine that the officer should undergo prophylaxis treatment, which can prevent HIV and hepatitis B. It is also still important, especially following a significant exposure, that precautions are taken for three to six months to prevent the possible spread of disease, this being the time it generally takes a person to receive their blood test results.

On balance, I think we should implement this bill to alleviate, where possible, the anxiety of our police officers, medical practitioners and nurses in hospitals as well as those who work or volunteer in emergency services who may have been exposed to HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C by offenders. Even if it can provide only some small comfort to those who work so hard to protect and serve the community whilst they wait for blood test results, it is worthwhile. I commend this bill to the chamber.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:14): I understand that all second reading contributions have been made in relation to this bill, and I am grateful for the support expressed for the bill by honourable members, and the opposition's constructive approach. The bill extends to any member of an emergency service subjected to violence where there is a risk of the transmission of an infectious disease. These include: police officers; medical and nursing staff; firefighters, including the Country Fire Service; State Emergency Service volunteers; St John Ambulance staff; and lifesavers.

Figures highlight the alarming incidence of work place violence upon not just police officers but also health and paramedic staff, putting them at risk of contracting an infectious disease through occupational violence. Such violence is deplorable. This bill provides our emergency workers with support when they are subjected to deplorable occupational violence which has the potential to give rise to the risk of the transmission of an infectious disease.

The bill provides that an offender can be required to undertake a blood test upon the authorisation of a senior police officer. Further, the results of any test are inadmissible in legal proceedings. The bill also amends section 58 of the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act 2007 to make it clear that regulations will control how tests are to be carried out and to whom the results may be released.

Those regulations will be drafted in consultation with South Australia Police and SA Health. It is expected that these regulations will be complemented by internal procedures for affected agencies. It is also intended that senior police officers will have regard to expert guidance on the risks of transmission of infectious diseases in deciding if testing is appropriate. A protocol will be developed between SA Health and South Australia Police—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! If the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Manufacturing want to have a conversation, they should leave the chamber. The minister is on her feet and has the call.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: —in close consultation with the Chief Public Health Officer to ensure that senior police officers are properly informed and testing under the bill is performed appropriately. With those words, I commend the bill to the chamber and look forward to it being dealt with expeditiously through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I just wish to record my thanks for the kind comments of the Government Whip, the Hon. Tung Ngo, in relation to this bill.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 11) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:19): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.