Criminal Law Consolidation (Assaults on Prescribed Emergency Workers) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (12:09): I thank honourable members for their contributions to the second reading. I would like to say that I had indicated to the Hon. Ms Franks, and one or two others, that I had a meeting at 11.30 with the chief executive officer of one of the major national financial institutions, which was important for me to attend as Treasurer. That was the reason why I sought the adjournment for 30 minutes, to 12 o'clock.

I think I indicated that soon after 12, I proposed to recommence debate on this. I noticed the Hon. Mr Parnell indicated the normal practice is to proceed as per the batting order, and that is correct, but there are sometimes occasions when other engagements require a reorganisation. As I said, I did speak to his colleague the Hon. Ms Franks—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Why didn't your whip reflect that on the paper, then? If you said everyone knew yesterday, why did you pretend that—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I did not say yesterday. I spoke to you and I spoke to the Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: No, you didn't.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, I did. I came across the chamber and spoke to you, then I spoke to Tammy. Anyway, Mr President, that debate—

The PRESIDENT: Is not one I want to hear.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Exactly. I cancelled the meeting halfway through and rejoined. I thank honourable members for their contribution to this particular piece of legislation. From the very start, the government has involved all stakeholders to provide a well-rounded, necessary and carefully considered law. The unusual aspect of this bill is that the police commissioner supports the government's efforts and reforms, with the Police Association continuing to push for further standalone offences to distinguish themselves from others.

Some have argued there are already a multitude of laws which are not being prosecuted or sentenced to community expectations, and this is a matter which must be dealt with both from a court sentencing perspective, from the charges which are being laid by officers, and also from the prosecuting work of the police prosecutors and the DPP. In weighing up these aspects, the government has considered all front-line emergency workers and considered the criminal law as it currently stands. The Law Society specifically mentions this in their submission to the government, noting the overlap and rehashing of laws which already exist. Specifically, the Law Society say, and I quote:

The Society does not condone assaults on police officers and/or other frontline and emergency workers. These people play an important role in our community and it is understood their occupations place them in a position of vulnerability. As such, this is reflected in the criminal law in South Australia under a number of existing provisions. While the [Law] Society appreciates the need to deter this type of behaviour, it considers that the legislative mechanisms to deal with these types of offences are already in place.

I reiterate the Attorney's sentiments in the other place in the media throughout this process. It must be made absolutely clear that the criminal law is not deficient in terms of what offences are available to be charged and prosecuted. Despite this, a clear message must be sent to both offenders and the courts as to what is an appropriate sentence for someone who harms our front-line emergency services workers. This has been actioned through increased penalties aligning with the position in New South Wales, as requested by the Police Association and the commissioner, and also through secondary sentencing considerations.

The creation of a new offence and increased maxima will better protect police and other emergency services workers while complementing existing laws capturing offences against police and broader assault laws, including: shoot at police, with a maximum penalty of 10 years in gaol; shoot at police and causing serious harm to an officer, with a maximum penalty of 25 years in gaol; acts endangering the life of another, with a maximum penalty of 18 years, as an aggravated offence when against a police officer; and acts endangering the life of another, with a maximum penalty of 18 years.

The government listened, acted and expanded the bill through consultation with the Australian Medical Association, the Public Service Association, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation and the SES, CFS and MFS. I am sure all members would like to see a situation where police assaults are not common occurrences; however, the way this occurs is a matter of contention. I repeat on behalf of the government that in no circumstance are offences against police and emergency services workers appropriate or condoned. They are an absolute blight on our community and those who protect and care for us. With that, I thank members for their indication to support the second reading.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My question to the minister is: has the government conducted any further consultation since the debate in the House of Assembly on the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that there has been some further consultation with the PSA, the nurses' federation and the AMA in relation to some of the aspects of the regulation-making powers, I assume as it might relate to members of theirs. Yes, my assumption is correct: as it would relate to members of the PSA, the nurses' federation and the AMA, so regulations that might relate to their membership.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is the government able to provide copies of any new submissions from the groups outlined? If I heard correctly, it was the PSA, the ANMF and the AMA. I just want to check that the ambulance union did not provide any further submissions; is that what the Treasurer would have us believe?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not have copies of any submissions. If there were any submissions, it may well have been verbal consultation, I am not sure. So I am not in a position to provide copies of submissions. My advice was those three organisations to which I have responded to the honourable member's first question.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the Treasurer for letting us know that the ambulance union did not have any consultation since it has gone through the House of Assembly. I understand the Treasurer said he does not have copies of any submissions with him. Will he undertake to provide them to the chamber at a later date when he does seem more organised and has these things with him?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will put aside the gratuitous insult from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Chair. I will refer the honourable member's question to the minister responsible, the Attorney-General, to see, firstly, whether there were any submissions and, secondly, whether she is prepared to provide copies. But I do not have copies of any submissions, if they existed, or indeed notes of discussions that might have been conducted between government officers and representatives of those three organisations.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again noting that he does not have any of the details with him or is not able to ascertain the details, can the Treasurer inform the chamber of whether any of the groups that he has mentioned expressed concern or were unhappy with the scope or content of the bill as it stands and as it passed the House of Assembly?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the Attorney-General did not receive any submission opposed to the principles of the bill from the PSA, the nurses federation and the AMA at any stage, not just since the passage in the assembly. I am advised that that covers the period since the bill passed the House of Assembly and prior to coming before the Legislative Council.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just to be clear, is the Treasurer informing the chamber that the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation of South Australia have not expressed at any stage—not just since the passage in the House of Assembly but at any stage—any concern with the scope or content of the bill?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That was the advice I was just given. My advice is that the nurses federation originally wrote asking for—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Okay; so it has changed now, has it?

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, just let him answer the question.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Well, he's—

The CHAIR: Let him answer the question. I am really on a short fuse. I am sick of your commentary. I have had to put up with it all morning. You need to reflect on your professionalism. I am not going to tolerate it any more today. Ask your question; let him respond. Treasurer.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the nurses federation in particular, in response to the original bill, because the bill did not cover nurses in certain circumstances, asked for an extension of the bill to cover nurses in certain circumstances. Subsequent to that, there has been no further submissions, I am advised. The advice in relation to the PSA and the AMA is the same as I shared with the leader in response to his earlier question.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: How does the Treasurer reconcile his comment only five minutes ago that there was, at no stage, correspondence from the nurses federation with the comment he just made to the chamber that there was correspondence with the nurses federation? Which are we supposed to believe?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I did not refer to correspondence. I think the question was in relation to submissions. All I can share with the Leader of the Opposition, in a genuine endeavour to conduct the committee stage in an adult fashion, is that the information I am provided with as the minister handling the bill in this chamber I share accurately and faithfully. I would hope that we can continue the committee stage in an adult fashion rather than the fashion the Leader of the Opposition would appear intent on pursuing.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Has the minister had a briefing on this bill prior to handling it in this chamber?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: With all bills I have a general briefing.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The minister raised in his second reading speech on this bill that he was not in the chamber earlier because he had a meeting. Can the minister inform the chamber, given that he raised this in the second reading summary, when this meeting was scheduled? When was this meeting originally put in his diary?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not think it has anything to do with the bill, but I do not know when it went into my diary.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It may not be to do with the content of this bill; it is to do with how this bill has proceeded through this chamber. It is the case that the minister raised it as part of his second reading summary. The reason I ask is that our Notice Paper says that this bill was due to go through all stages as the first order of business today. For the Notice Paper to reflect that, the only conclusion one can draw is that this was a meeting that was very, very hastily arranged—so that it happened after the Notice Paper was put together. Can the minister tell us whether that is the case or not?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It has nothing to do with the passage of this particular bill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will ask the question again. The Treasurer himself was the one who raised this as part of his own second reading summary. Can the Treasurer, who saw fit to think it was important enough to raise in the second reading, please inform the chamber whether his meeting was scheduled before the Notice Paper was put together?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have nothing further to add.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Will the Treasurer inform the chamber whether the bill was delayed because of the presence of people who represent emergency services workers in the gallery today?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have nothing further to add, Mr Chairman.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The Treasurer has seen fit to ask others to reflect on how they conduct themselves. The Treasurer is going to have to have relationships with important members of the community, those who represent those who protect us in EB negotiations and in other respects. I think the Treasurer owes them the courtesy of explaining why this bill did not proceed when it was supposed to.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, I have nothing further to add.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is the minister aware of any ongoing criticism of the bill, and how would the minister address the accusation that the bill is weak and not fit for purpose?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not think one has to be a Rhodes scholar to know that there is continuing opposition. I am surprised the Leader of the Opposition would need to ask that particular question. The very capable Police Association of South Australia have expressed publicly—and I am surprised they have not expressed the view privately to the Leader of the Opposition—their views in relation to the legislation.

We are about to go through a committee stage, once we get beyond these particular questions, where a series of amendments are going to be moved and, on my understanding, supported by a majority of members in this council. So I think the Leader of the Opposition knows the answer to that particular question. Yes, there is opposition from the Police Association in relation to some aspects of the government's legislation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What is the government's response to the particular concern that the bill is weak and not fit for purpose?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I put the government's position, as provided to me by the Attorney-General and her advisers, in the closing of the second reading. I refer the honourable member to the closing speech of the second reading debate.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is the minister able to inform the chamber of the process of this bill coming to the parliament; that is, when were concerns first raised that these laws were needed by the Police Association?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the Attorney-General had a meeting with Mr Carroll from the Police Association in October of last year, and then in January of this year received a written submission from Mr Carroll on behalf of the Police Association in relation to potential solutions to the issues he had referred to in their earlier verbal meeting.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If the matters were first raised in October of last year, what has taken so long for this to come before the parliament?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that in the meeting in October, which I understand may well have canvassed a range of issues, no particular solutions were sought at that stage, that is, as to detail, as I understood it. That was, I am advised, in October. What happened was that in January a submission in relation to potential solutions, as I understand it, was provided to the Attorney from the Police Association, and it has obviously moved ahead apace from that particular period.

I am sure the Leader of the Opposition, if he can remember his days in government, from the day of initial suggestion in terms of legislation to the time that parliament first considers it, this particular time period probably would be at one of the shorter ends of the continuum (other than emergency legislation, which might have to occur as a result of a particular court case that has a particular time line). Certainly from my experience, both recent and past, it is not an uncommon length of time from when a submission has been made to when parliament ultimately considers the legislation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To clarify that, is the Treasurer suggesting that in October there was not a specific suggestion or request for laws to be changed?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, I didn't say that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: So in October was there a specific suggestion or request that laws be changed?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I was not there at the meeting, but my advice is that there was a general discussion where the problem was raised, but the specific solutions, as suggested by the Police Association, were confirmed in the letter of January. Not having been privy to the convivial meeting between the Attorney-General and the head of the Police Association in October, I can offer no better advice or information other than what I have placed on the public record.

Clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Given the inclusion of community corrections officers in this clause, presumably because of their roles visiting houses and public places, conducting checks on dangerous people and serving papers, has the government done any work on further classes of people who may be called upon to do similar work?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that a number of occupations were canvassed by the Attorney in either her second reading or in the committee stage debate. I think they include bailiffs and court sheriffs as two potential occupations where there is some ongoing consideration as to whether or not, at some stage, these regulation-making powers might be utilised to bring those particular occupations into play.

The provision does not restrict what other occupations might be considered at some future stage but, as I understand it, the Attorney-General has referred to those two particular occupations as ones that there has been some discussion or debate about at this stage. My advice is there is no concluded view from the government in relation to that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think that raises what I was going to go on to next. For example, sheriff's officers are not included in the definition; clearly, in drafting the bill, the mind was turned towards whether community corrections officers were. What distinguishes, in the government's view, sheriff's officers from community corrections officers, such that community corrections officers should be in legislation whereas sheriff's officers are merely a group who may be considered later on, possibly in regulations?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think this canvasses the general issue as to where you eventually draw the line when you proceed down the path of legislation of this particular nature. Ultimately, the government and the parliament will have to determine where it wants to draw the line. My advice is the legislation refers to prison officers and community corrections officers were seen to be analogous to prison officers. That is what has governed the government's current thinking. There is now the discussion that, if that is the case, do bailiffs and sheriffs also get included or not? That is the current debate.

That is why there is the regulation-making power eventually—because a regulation can be disallowed by either house of parliament—to seek to extend the occupation to include further occupations that perhaps are not strictly or technically a prison officer but maybe the nature of their work is significantly similar to the work of a prison officer. There may well be arguments for and against that.

Clearly, before any regulation is brought down by any government, there will be a period of consultation. Then, ultimately, the parliament retains the right to disallow a regulation if the parliament takes the view that the government is seeking to extend the regulation beyond what the intent of the legislation was.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the Treasurer for his response and the discussion about why some are in and some are out, in terms of the different classes of workers. Can the Treasurer outline which medical practitioners and professionals and allied medical people are covered by the regime outlined in this bill?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that under paragraph (g) of the definition clause:

a medical practitioner or other health practitioner (both within the meaning of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia)), attending an out of hours or unscheduled callout—

Sorry, it is the definition within the meaning of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia), so I cannot offer the honourable member any greater clarity. As the member, I hope, would understand, in terms of medical practitioners, I will not say a thousand but there are a lot of different categories of medical practitioners encapsulated and I presume they are more clearly and definitively outlined in that health practitioner national law.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Did I hear the Treasurer correctly when as part of his response he said it will cover medical practitioners who are—I cannot remember the words that were used. He might put them specifically. Was it 'out of hours calls' or what was the wording the Treasurer used?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am just referring to paragraph (g). I refer the honourable member to page 5 of the bill, paragraph (g). It is just that the second part of that, I think, was not actually relating to the question that the member was asking me. He was asking about the medical practitioner, but the rest of the paragraph refers to 'attending an out of hours or unscheduled callout, or assessing, stabilising or treating a person at the scene of an accident or other emergency', etc.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I note the Treasurer trailed off when he said 'etc.' The whole of paragraph (g), does that only apply to these things occurring in a rural area?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Does this bill seek to cover medical practitioners working in emergency departments of hospitals?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is yes, because there is another provision that picks up occupations in the Criminal Law Consolidation (General) Regulations 2006—Prescribed occupations and employment, which is employment as a medical practitioner in a hospital.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just to be very clear, it covers medical practitioners in any part of a hospital, not just an emergency department? Is that what the Treasurer is assuring the chamber of?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am just reading from the particular provision, which is clause 3A(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation (General) Regulations. I am just reading from it. I will read it again: 'employment as a medical practitioner in a hospital'.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the purposes of this bill, just to be clear, what the Treasurer is stating is that it relates to medical practitioners in the whole of the hospital, not just in the emergency department?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I can only repeat what I have just been advised, that that is the definition.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think this is important. I just want to check, because medical practitioners, I think, will be keen to know that that is the case. Just to be clear, if you are working in a non-emergency part of a hospital, this regime will cover you as a medical practitioner in a hospital? I just want to be absolutely certain that we are getting this right.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice, I can only repeat, is yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Going back to the definition under paragraph (g) of the definitions section, where it refers to 'in a rural area', the Treasurer has previously assured the chamber that, for that clause, all the aspects of paragraph (g) only apply in a rural area. Is there any way that this regime applies to a medical practitioner or other health professional attending an out-of-hours or unscheduled call in a non-rural area?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is no.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can the Treasurer explain, for the purposes of this bill, what is defined as a rural area? If someone were to be charged with a contravention of this act, where are the lines drawn to know whether this act applies to them? Is it on one side of the road or the other that you get the protection afforded in this act?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that it is any area not in the metropolitan area as designated in the Development Act.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Does that include Gawler, for example?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is pretty hard to tell from the map that is in the Development Act, but it looks like Gawler is in the metropolitan area in the Development Act.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In terms of the actions that this act seeks to make offences or increase penalties for, from the reading of the Development Act (noting that the map is not as clear as it might be) the protections afforded in this act would not apply if a medical practitioner or a health practitioner were attending an unscheduled call out in Gawler, but they would apply in areas further north of Gawler, such as in areas of the Barossa.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The member has asked about the Barossa but, because this map is very imprecise, it is hard to tell from the map where the delineation is between what looks to be Gawler in the metropolitan area and what looks to be outside of it. It would appear that the Barossa is outside of it. Not that I am an expert—the Hon. Mr Parnell would probably be able to assist us in relation to the planning and development act—but my recollection is that probably the Barossa is outside the—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: It is.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: 'It is,' says my learned colleague, the Hon. Mr Dawkins, who knows that area better than I do. If that is the case, my advice is that the answer to the member's question is that that is correct. Gawler is in the metropolitan area and the Barossa is in the rural area, therefore there are different provisions that apply.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can I ask the government what the rationale was, when they drafted this legislation, in applying different provisions to a rural area and to a non-rural area in terms of unscheduled call outs? What is it about? If we are reading the maps right, a call out in the Barossa means that the protections ought to be afforded but a callout in Gawler means that they ought not to be afforded.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not really in a position to give the honourable member a definitive reply in relation to what the delineating factors were in relation to both when this legislation was originally drafted. The broad advice that is available to me at the moment is that it is a question of isolation; that is, in rural areas you are generally more isolated, while in the metropolitan area you have the capacity for slightly greater support or protection.

Clearly, when you get to the dividing line in the Adelaide Hills—wherever the line is and I do not know where it is, but I know in shop trading legislation there is a different law for Stirling and Mount Barker—wherever the line is drawn, that particular argument will be a less significant factor as opposed to the metropolitan area versus the Murray Mallee, or the metropolitan area versus the Eyre Peninsula or the Yorke Peninsula.

Wherever the line is drawn, those communities that are just in and those communities that are just out may well argue that they ought to be treated in the same way but eventually, assuming you have to draw the line somewhere, where do you draw the line? There will always be the argument from those who are just in and those who are just out. I am not in a position to give a definitive response to the member's question in relation to when it was originally drafted with parliamentary counsel and others as to what drove them. I can only give you that general response based on the advice I have just received.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand that there will always be a line, and there will be one side of the line and another side of the line, but my question really went to, 'Why are we choosing to draw a line at all? Why is it that we think only in rural areas? Why have that qualification in that clause?' I take the point that the Treasurer makes that he is not sure of why things were in there when they were drafted.

I think it does go to a point I made earlier about whether he had been sufficiently briefed on this bill to understand what he is telling the chamber, and those of us who have to make decisions, and whether attending meetings when he is supposed to be doing this, lessens his ability to concentrate and understand this. Perhaps I will restate the question: why choose to have a line at all? Why not just leave out 'in a rural area'?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I cannot add anything further than the advice I have shared with the Leader of the Opposition.

Clause passed.

Clauses 5 and 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Maher–1]—

Page 4, line 3 to page 5, line 35 [clause 7, inserted section 20AA]—Delete inserted section 20AA and substitute:

20AA—Causing harm to, or assaulting, certain emergency workers etc

(1) A person who causes harm to a prescribed emergency worker acting in the course of official duties, intending to cause harm, is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 15 years.

(2) A person who causes harm to a prescribed emergency worker acting in the course of official duties, and is reckless in doing so, is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.

(3) A person who assaults a prescribed emergency worker acting in the course of official duties is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

(4) A person who hinders or resists a police officer acting in the course of official duties, and, in so doing, causes harm to the officer, is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.

(5) In proceedings for an offence against this section, it is a defence for the defendant to prove that the defendant did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the victim was a prescribed emergency worker, or police officer, (as the case requires) acting in the course of official duties.

(6) Without limiting the ways in which a person can cause harm to a prescribed emergency worker, harm can be caused by causing human biological material to come into contact with a prescribed emergency worker.

(7) For the purposes of this section, a person causes human biological material to come into contact with a victim if the person performs any act (including, without limiting the generality of this subsection, by spitting or throwing human biological material at the victim, or deliberately applying human biological material to their person knowing that the victim is likely to come into physical contact with the person in the course of their duties) intended or likely to cause human biological material to come into contact with the victim.

(8) This section does not apply to conduct occurring before the commencement of this section.

(9) In this section—

assault means an assault within the meaning of section 20(1) and includes, to avoid doubt, an act consisting of intentionally causing human biological material to come into contact with a victim, or threatening to do so;

harm has the same meaning as in Division 7A;

human biological material means blood, saliva, semen, faeces, urine or vomit;

prescribed emergency worker means—

(a) a police officer; or

(b) a prison officer; or

(c) a community corrections officer or community youth justice officer; or

(d) an employee in a training centre (within the meaning of the Youth Justice Administration Act 2016); or

(e) a person (whether a medical practitioner, nurse, security officer or otherwise) performing duties in a hospital; or

(f) a person (whether a medical practitioner, nurse, pilot or otherwise) performing duties in the course of retrieval medicine; or

(g) a medical practitioner or other health practitioner (both within the meaning of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia)) attending an out of hours or unscheduled callout, or assessing, stabilising or treating a person at the scene of an accident or other emergency, in a rural area; or

(h) a member of the SA Ambulance Service Inc; or

(i) a member of SAMFS, SACFS or SASES; or

(j) a law enforcement officer; or

(k) any other person engaged in an occupation or employment prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of section 5AA(1)(ka); or

(l) any other person prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph,

whether acting in a paid or voluntary capacity, but does not include a person, or person of a class, declared by the regulations to be excluded from the ambit of this definition.

We think these are important amendments. The opposition has not opposed the previous clauses in this bill, even though we think they do not do very much at all. They slightly change the definition of 'worker' as captured by the act which, as the contributions made by the Treasurer have demonstrated, have not been particularly well thought out.

The government themselves do not understand the rationale behind the reasons they are making some of these, and they increase very slightly penalties for some offences. We have not interfered with those earlier provisions although I note that this provision will substantially make those provisions not redundant but actually give effect to what the government ought to have been doing in this area.

This amendment to clause 7 creates specific offences around the assault and injury of police, ambulance officers and emergency workers. The creation of a specific offence, as opposed to a simple aggravation, is yet another signal of the seriousness of these types of offences and a recognition that they do constitute a different type of assault with harm; that is, that people assaulted as part of their duty may necessarily go into a potentially dangerous situation in order to help others, to administer treatment, to protect life or property or the community generally.

It is another signal to the courts, in conjunction with the sensible changes to the Sentencing Act, that these offences should be punished appropriately. The offences themselves amended in this section are as follows: causing harm to a prescribed emergency worker acting in the course of their official duties, or intending to cause harm, a maximum penalty of 15 years; and it cascades down to causing harm to a prescribed emergency worker acting in the course of their duties through a reckless act, 10 years; and assaulting a prescribed emergency worker acting in the course of their official duties, with a maximum of five years.

It should also be noted that the provisions in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act around serious harm, where there is a maximum penalty of 25 years, will not be changed by this section. The amendment also incorporates a clarification that throwing or using biological material to assault and/or injure a prescribed emergency worker constitutes an assault and/or harm within the meaning of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

On this side of the chamber, we are listening to the concerns of those who willingly put themselves in harm's way to protect the public. That is why this amendment clarifies some of these things. It goes a step further than the government has been prepared to do and includes a wider range of people to afford these protections. I commend the amendments to clause 7 to the chamber.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.