Motions

Gayle's Law

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. C. Bonaros:

That the regulations made under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 concerning remote area attendance made on 16 May 2019 and laid on the table of this council on 4 June 2019, be disallowed.

(Continued from 19 June 2019)

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS (15:59): I stand to speak today on the Hon. Connie Bonaros's motion of disallowance. I thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros for all her endeavours on this matter and support her disallowance on these regulations. I note the presence of representatives from the ANMFSA here today whose members are at the coalface and stand to be most impacted by these regulations.

The alarming circumstances surrounding the death of Gayle Woodford raised the very serious question of: are we doing enough to keep our nurses safe, specifically remote area practitioners and health professionals? To understand this issue we have to appreciate the circumstances that gave rise to Gayle's Law. These were: Gayle was in a remote location responding to an emergency call in a public space; she would have been required to make a risk assessment in accordance with her employer's safety policies; and she was assaulted and killed by a third party.

This incident led to the introduction of legislation that was predicated on the requirement of a second responder to attend after-hours call-outs with health practitioners, predominately nurses. As put by the Hon. Stephen Wade, whilst in opposition, and I quote:

The bill requires health practitioners in remote areas to be accompanied by a second person when responding to after-hours or emergency call-outs. The presence of a second person should reduce the risk of a personal attack…

For this model to work, we need to ensure that we recruit and maintain a network of second responders throughout the remote areas. When called for an after-hours or unscheduled emergency call, health practitioners will need to assess the risk involved in the situation, deciding whether their service needs to be provided immediately or whether it can be provided during normal hours. If deemed to be an emergency, the practitioner will rendezvous with a second responder at an agreed location to accompany him or her to the site of the emergency. The second responder will remain with them until the call-out is finished.

This commitment was reflected in the legislation, commonly known as Gayle's Law, as a means by which in some way we could afford protection and security to help professionals in remote and isolated environments. The regulations, however, and in particular clause 11D, do not reflect the intentions of the legislation and seek to dilute the requirements of a two-person responder provision whereupon a health practitioner can attend an after-hours call-out alone following a risk assessment being undertaken by the individual. This is contrary to the intent of the legislation.

Whilst provisions envisaged in Gayle's Law could never eliminate all risk, it would certainly go a long way towards providing a safer and more secure process, as anticipated in the legislation. I am fortified by the views expressed by the AMA, which stated, and I quote:

…the safety of health practitioners must override any other priority. As such they strongly support legislation that requires that a second responder be required in all circumstances, as initially intended by the family of Mrs Woodford. These members urge that legislation must protect and be unequivocally seen to protect, the healthcare professionals who agree to work in geographically remote areas, often in extreme conditions, and that having a second responder present in all circumstances be a categorical requirement in minimising the risk to their safety and wellbeing.

There were representations also made, which echoed these sentiments, by the nurses union as well as the Woodford family and SASMOA. The concern with the current regulations is that health practitioners are afforded no additional support or security and are placed in a situation where they are required to make a risk assessment at a time of urgency in a pressured manner. It is placing an inordinate amount of pressure and stress on a health professional who is already in an urgent emergency situation.

It would appear that the regulations have been drafted with the consideration of resourcing and funding issues being of paramount importance. This could be the only explanation as to why we are presented with a diluted policy requirement for regulation in comparison to the requirement that two persons attend as promulgated in the legislation.

Limitations of funding have been the primary consideration of organisations and agencies that have presented submissions in previous inquiries, and rightly so when you are dealing with limited funding and resources. The issue of resourcing and funding of agencies and organisations that provide vital services in remote locations should not be a consideration in drafting regulations. It should be addressed as a structural and strategic decision made by government to provide additional support for agencies to meet the commitments as anticipated by Gayle's Law. It should not take away from their already limited funding and resources.

The reality is that these regulations, as currently structured, would not have prevented Gayle's rape and death. The intentions of Gayle's Law were to reduce harm and deaths for remote health professionals and, to this end, the model promulgated by the act would go a long way towards that. The intention of this government should be to ensure that adequate resources are provided to enable agencies and organisations to make that law a reality. For this reason, these regulations should be disallowed.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.