Ministerial Statement

Gayle's Law Regulations

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (14:16): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yesterday, the Legislative Review Committee withdrew its holding motion on regulations made under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010, more commonly known as Gayle's Law. The government welcomes the withdrawal of the motion as confirmation that the regulations strike the right balance. On the one hand, the law provides strong and additional protection for health practitioners working in remote parts of South Australia; on the other, the law provides the flexibility for a health practitioner to be able to respond to an emergency without a second responder in limited circumstances and only if it is safe to do so.

I look forward to reviewing the committee's report in due course. The committee received and has published 15 submissions. The submissions are overwhelmingly supportive of the regulations as they came into effect on 1 July this year. I would like to take the opportunity to advise the council of recent actions that I have taken to ensure the full and effective operation of Gayle's Law. Under the act, health service providers must have policies and procedures in place to give effect to Gayle's Law. Pursuant to section 77H(4) of the act, health service providers must provide the minister, if requested, a copy of those policies and procedures.

On 25 July 2019, I formally asked relevant health service providers to provide me with a copy of those documents for review against the requirements of the act and regulations. In the same letter, I advised those health service providers of my decision to bring forward the statutory review of Gayle's Law so that it will now occur after one year of operation rather than two full years, as planned. To support this review, I formally asked them to actively record information that will, I believe, ensure the review is able to thoroughly and fairly assess the act's operation.

The specific information I have asked them to record includes the number of second responders the organisation has access to or employs, and the proportion of shifts, if any, where it is not possible to roster on a second responder. In relation to each incident where a health service has not been provided due to the unavailability of a second responder, I have asked that records be kept of the reason why a second responder was not available and what was the outcome for the patient.

The letter also seeks information in relation to each incident where a health practitioner has responded to an out-of-hours or unscheduled callout without a second responder, including the nature of the incident, the reason a second responder was not engaged and any impact on the health and safety of the employee.

I again pay tribute to Gayle Woodford and express my sympathy to her family. I recognise the concerns of the Woodford family and their determination to strengthen protections for doctors, nurses and other front-line health professionals. My decision to bring forward the review recognises their concerns and demonstrates the determination of this government to both protect our health professionals and support them to respond to medical emergencies when it is safe to do so.