Gayle's Law

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:13): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Health and Wellbeing a question about Gayle's Law.

Leave granted.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Last week it was revealed that the Marshall government has introduced regulations which will allow SA Health nurses and public health practitioners to go to public places without a second responder or colleague in a number of circumstances, including where a risk assessment has been undertaken on the person they are to treat. My questions are:

1. In light of the looming 1 July start date, which I note is now the subject of two mirroring disallowance motions, have any stakeholders indicated that they would find it difficult to develop their own policies and procedures in line with Gayle's Law?

2. What advice did the minister receive that was so compelling that it convinced him to do a backflip on the centrepiece of Gayle's Law, namely, that remote area health nurses be accompanied by a second responder?

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (15:14): I thank the honourable member for her question. As I understand it, the question was: have any health service providers indicated to me that they won't be able to get policies and procedures in place in accordance with the expectation of the regulations as of 1 July? I am not aware of any such advice. As far as I know, a lot of health service providers have already drafted and are working to policies and procedures that are consistent with Gayle's Law. For example, Nganampa Health Council in the north-western part of the state, I understand, has been using Gayle's Law policies and procedures for months, if not for 12 months—I'm not clear about the length of time but it's a significant amount of time.

In terms of the issue of public place exemption, I want to make very clear what the regulations reflect. The regulations reflect that there are no circumstances under which a health professional can attend a private place without a second responder. However, the regulations highlight a series of circumstances where a health professional could respond without a second responder. One of those circumstances—and I should stress, only one—is when a health professional is acting in accordance with the policies and procedures of their organisation and has, having made a risk assessment, determined that they reasonably believe that it is safe to respond.

That provision was explicitly in the draft regulations that were distributed at the end of March. That provision is in the regulations that were promulgated in May. As far as I'm aware, there was only one organisation that raised concerns in relation to that provision, and that was the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. Associate Professor Elizabeth Dabars said last week that the ANMF—let me recall the words: 'The ANMF was absolutely shocked and blindsided when only a week ago we discovered that the regulations had put in a significant loophole.'

I was very surprised to hear that comment because the ANMF had written to me expressing its concerns about that clause in a letter dated 2 April. I wrote back to the ANMF on 18 May, and it is effectively a month later. I certainly dispute that this is a late revelation; this is an issue that was considered. The ANMF raised their concerns and, in fact, not last week but the week before I actually met with the ANMF and they reiterated their concerns about the clause. In response to their concerns, I undertook to actively monitor that aspect of the legislation and to undertake a review, and involve the ANMF in the review, to assess the operation.

I respect the fact that the ANMF has concerns about that clause. I can also assure you that there are a number of health service providers who are concerned if the clause was to be removed.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Bonaros, a supplementary?