Bills

South Australian Public Health (Controlled Notifiable Conditions) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (15:24): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the South Australian Public Health Act 2011. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (15:25): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Public health officials around the globe are currently dealing with the COVID-19 outbreak, and South Australia is no exception. As the world prepares for the possibility of the situation escalating, the bill that I am introducing today seeks to amend the South Australian Public Health Act 2011 to allow the Chief Public Health Officer additional powers to pre-emptively control the spread of notifiable conditions such as COVID-19.

The proposed amendments will provide the Chief Public Health Officer with greater capacity to rapidly respond to and contain public health risks related to infectious diseases while maintaining appropriate protections for individuals, such as case reviews and the capacity to appeal to the courts.

The proposed amendments include:

allowing a more timely and rapid process for the Chief Public Health Officer to detain a person engaging in conduct that presents a risk to the public;

allowing detention, in urgent circumstances, where there have been no prior breaches or noncompliance, or the service of a direction;

expanding the application of controls under the act to people who could have been exposed to a controlled notifiable condition (previously limited to people who have, or have been exposed to a case of, a controlled notifiable condition);

where necessary, allow verbal orders or directions to require testing, counselling or actions to prevent the spread of infection, or detention, to be followed with a written notice; and

clarify that an order to remain at a specified place could include a hospital or quarantine facility.

I commend the bill to the council.

EXPLANATION OF CLAUSES

Part 1—Preliminary 1—Short title 2—Amendment provisions

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of South Australian Public Health Act 2011

3—Amendment of section 73—Power to require a person to undergo an examination or test

This clause amends section 73 to enable a requirement under the section to be given by oral order where the Chief Public Health Officer considers that urgent action is required in the circumstances of the particular case. When such an order is made the Chief Public Health Officer must confirm the order by notice in writing served on the person as soon as practicable, but in any event within 48 hours, after giving the order. A failure to serve a notice in accordance with the section will not affect the validity of the oral order.

4—Amendment of section 74—Power to require counselling

This clause amends section 74 to enable a requirement under the section to be given by oral order where the Chief Public Health Officer considers that urgent action is required in the circumstances of the particular case. When such an order is made the Chief Public Health Officer must confirm the order by notice in writing served on the person as soon as practicable, but in any event within 48 hours, after giving the order. A failure to serve a notice in accordance with the section will not affect the validity of the oral order.

5—Amendment of section 75—Power to give directions

This clause amends section 75(1)(a) to add to the circumstances in which the Chief Public Health Officer may make a direction under the section. The additional circumstance is where the Chief Public Health Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person could have been exposed to a controlled notifiable condition. In order to make a direction the Chief Public Health Officer must also, under the current section 75(1)(b), consider that an order under the section is reasonably necessary in the interests of public health.

This clause also amends section 75 to enable a direction under the section to be given by oral order where the Chief Public Health Officer considers that urgent action is required in the circumstances of the particular case. When such an order is made the Chief Public Health Officer must confirm the order by notice in writing served on the person as soon as practicable, but in any event within 48 hours, after giving the order. A failure to serve a notice in accordance with the section will not affect the validity of the oral order.

This clause also amends section 75(4)(a) so that a person may be directed to remain at a specified place including, without limitation, a hospital or quarantine facility.

6—Amendment of section 77—Power to require detention

This clause substitutes section 77(1) which provides the circumstances in which the Chief Public Health Officer may make an order under the section. The substituted subsection is in the same terms as the current subsection (1) with the following amendments:

(a) subsection (1)(a) of section 77 may additionally be satisfied under proposed section 77(1)(a)(iii) if the Chief Public Health Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person could have been exposed to a controlled notifiable condition;

(b) subsection (1)(b) of section 77 may additionally be satisfied under proposed section 77(1)(b)(iii) if the Chief Public Health Officer is satisfied that urgent action is required in the circumstances of the particular case such that a direction under section 75 is not appropriate.

Amendments consequential to the substitution of section 75(1) are included to provide that where an order is made under proposed section 75(1)(a)(iii), on the basis that a person could have been exposed to a controlled notifiable condition, the maximum period of detention that may initially be imposed will be 48 hours with periods of extension up to 30 days. Further, where an order is made on this basis and the Chief Public Health Officer considers that an extension of the order will be necessary, the Chief Public Health Officer must, before the expiration of the 48 hour period, apply to the Magistrates Court for a review of the order. Once an application is made the order may be extended and the Magistrates Court should seek to hear and determine the application as soon as is reasonably practicable at which time the Court may confirm, vary or revoke the order.

This clause also amends section 77 to enable an order under the section to be given by oral order where the Chief Public Health Officer considers that urgent action is required in the circumstances of the particular case. When such an order is made the Chief Public Health Officer must confirm the order by notice in writing served on the person as soon as practicable, but in any event within 48 hours, after giving the order. A failure to serve a notice in accordance with the section will not affect the validity of the oral order.

Section 77(4) is proposed to be amended to simply state that an order under the section will be that the person ‘be detained’ at a specified place while the order is in force rather than ‘submit to being detained.’

7—Amendment of section 79—Warrants

This clause adds to the circumstances in which the Chief Public Health Officer may apply to a magistrate for a warrant of apprehension under section 79. The proposed new circumstances in which a warrant may be sought are as follows:

(i) in respect of a person who is the subject of an order that has not been served on the person despite reasonable efforts to do so;

(ii) in respect of a person who—

(A) has a controlled notifiable condition, has been exposed to a controlled notifiable condition or could have been exposed to a controlled notifiable condition; and

(B) is engaging in, or has engaged in, conduct that creates a risk to others in respect of the controlled notifiable condition.

8—Amendment of section 101—Service of notices or other documents

This clause amends section 101 as follows:

(a) to provide that, in the event that personal service of an order under Part 10 is not reasonably practicable, such an order may be served on the person in the additional manners contemplated by sections 101(1)(a), (b) and (c) which are that the order may—

(i) be served on, or given to, an agent of the person; or

(ii) be left for the person at their place of residence or business with someone apparently over the age of 16 years; or

(iii) be sent by post to the person or an agent of the person at their last known address;

(b) to provide that subsection (4) (requiring personal service of an order under Part 10) does not apply in respect of a written notice confirming an oral order made under Part 10.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (15:27): I rise to indicate the opposition's support for this bill. We firmly believe that all reasonable measures must be taken so that we are as prepared as possible to protect South Australians against the impact and spread of coronavirus. This should be the case for any dangerous controlled notifiable disease.

A decade ago, former health minister John Hill introduced the SA Public Health Bill, which modernised our approach to such public health issues. The current minister and his department have both said that this legislation is still a modern approach to public health law that will help to protect our state. The government has now proposed a series of amendments that retain the original legislation as the foundation of such public health responses.

The opposition—the member for Kaurna and the shadow health minister in the other place—received a briefing on this legislation late yesterday afternoon and there we indicated our support for it. We expect the new measures to pass through this chamber today and the other place as quickly as possible. This legislation gives the Chief Public Health Officer a range of tools to respond quickly by issuing verbal directions in time-critical situations. This supports rapid and decisive action where it is justified to prevent the further spread of coronavirus.

Importantly, the bill extends the powers to allow for the detention of individuals whom the Chief Public Health Officer suspects could have been exposed to coronavirus, where the situation necessitates swift action. It also provides for the Chief Public Health Officer to seek warrants in circumstances where a person has been exposed to, or could have been exposed to, coronavirus. The proposed changes apply more broadly than coronavirus. They apply to all controlled notifiable conditions.

The government informed parliament that its preparation for a potential coronavirus pandemic has warranted the bill's introduction to the parliament and a request for swift passage. This is an important step in improving our preparedness as a state and ensuring we can best manage a potential pandemic. Therefore it has our complete bipartisan support.

We will continue to advocate for other measures necessary to improve the state's preparedness for managing an immediate coronavirus pandemic. We remain concerned over the fears expressed by SA Pathology staff last week that a lack of resources could impact on their ability to effectively respond to an outbreak. This is happening with the threat of privatisation hanging over this vital service.

We will continue to seek information in relation to the government's plan for voluntary separation packages for doctors and nurses in our public health system. These are people we may desperately need in the coming months if we reach a pandemic stage. We remain concerned over the warnings from paramedics that they do not have the capacity to manage demand in the event of a pandemic. The crews are already severely overstretched.

We do have several questions regarding how this legislation will work in practice and what other actions will be taken, and we look forward to exploring those as the bill makes its way through this place and, particularly, in the other place, where the shadow minister for health has some questions. However, as I said we indicate complete bipartisan support.

Lastly, the opposition wishes to place on the public record a note of thanks to public health officials: Chief Public Health Officer Dr Nicola Spurrier; Dr Chris Lease, Executive Director of Health Protection; Dr Louise Flood and Dr Ann Koehler from the Communicable Disease Control Branch; and every other public health official, clinician and administrative worker working hard to protect our state.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:31): SA-Best supports this bill in principle but with a caveat, as I realise that we will not have the numbers to defer progress of the bill today. Last year, I beat myself up when the Treasurer introduced a last-minute bill from the Attorney-General, which was rushed through that day without proper consideration by honourable members. You always run the risk that there could be unintended or unforeseen consequences to what, on the surface, is legislation with the right intent—and I have no doubt this is.

The first I knew about this was late yesterday through a typical government spin doctor drop to the media. I scanned the bill this morning just before a briefing by the health minister's able staff. I am always wary when governments, with the support of the opposition, want to rush things through, particularly when a bill contains some pretty draconian measures, such as this one does.

What we are talking about here is something that civil libertarians would take umbrage at; that is, a forced deprivation of liberty on suspicion that you may have come across someone with COVID-19 or come from a place that has an outbreak, like China, South Korea, Italy or Greece. There is something like 60 countries now.

Even in Japan, let us take the extreme scenario—just as this bill does—that there is a major outbreak in the Olympic Games athletes village, assuming that the games do take place. We could see a situation where the entire Australian team faces mandatory isolation for between 30 and 60 days or, simply, ordinary people locked away. What are the industrial consequences here? They could lose their jobs, their incomes, their businesses. What guarantees are in place that employers will not discriminate against them?

I am hoping that both the state and commonwealth governments are mindful that there will be unintended consequences like this and will work to protect people and businesses from this type of fallout. I have already spoken to the health minister about that this morning and he indicated that the commonwealth as well as the state is aware of this potential situation.

In saying this it also needs to be counterbalanced with the serious public health interests of the community at large. That, of course, must take priority. It is paramount as this epidemic spreads and will, if we are to believe reports from some scientists, infect most people at some time. I certainly hold concerns for the aged, particularly in nursing homes, or those with chronic illnesses, because they are the ones who are most at risk. We must do everything to protect them and I trust the authorities will exercise these powers with a great deal of responsibility.

To have this type of legislation before us today indicates to me that COVID-19 is a far more serious illness than we have been led to believe. I do not remember this action being proposed when we went through the SARS and swine flu outbreaks or when there was the threat of Ebola and HIV in the late seventies and eighties.

Perhaps there is sensitive information about COVID-19 that the minister or his SA Health chief executives are yet to disclose to us. I trust that they will be open and transparent, unlike the Chinese, who have failed in their attempts to, firstly, downplay the effects of COVID-19, then its spread, and now in their desperate measures to contain it.

The World Health Organization and its Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, also need to take a good, hard look at themselves for their initial complacency. I have been following this story very closely since the first reports emerged. So far, more than 3,040 people have died, including an Australian here, and more than 90,000 have been infected. Again, I do not believe those figures. Not many do; particularly when a country like China decides to build a hospital in seven days—and I do not believe it is a hospital—because something grave must be happening in that country.

World Health Organization officials said on Friday that they were increasing the risk assessment of coronavirus to 'very high' at the global level. In January, the World Health Organization declared the virus a global health emergency, while urging the public against overreacting to the virus—overreacting! That was their attitude then. The organisation has yet to classify the virus as a pandemic and has maintained that its attention is on containing the spread, even though the virus has substantially moved beyond China and has now been found, as I mentioned, in nearly 60 countries.

The OECD warns that the world economy faces its greatest danger since the GFC. The Reserve Bank has today cut official interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point to a low of 0.05 per cent because of COVID-19 and to protect our fragile economy nationally, internationally and in this state. Global markets are in turmoil.

As I often say in this chamber, we often fail to heed the lessons of history. If history is any guide, this virus is so far out of the bag and out of control that it is not likely to be halted until we see an effective vaccine. There are of course nine times more cases of COVID-19 outside of China; although, even that, I still cannot believe. With that, SA-Best supports the bill and we will also be asking questions of the health minister during the committee stage.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:38): I rise on behalf of the Greens to support this bill, and indeed to support the suspension of standing orders to debate this bill. This bill is the amendment of the South Australian Public Health Act 2011. I actually well remember the debate on this act back in 2010 and beyond. It was quite extensive, it was very consultative, and it was certainly very cognisant of civil liberties as well as the importance of public health.

I am very pleased to see that we have appointed a public health officer, and I commend her on her fine work in this situation. I also remind members that it was, in fact, former minister Holloway who originally spoke to the South Australian Public Health Bill, with these words:

This is the legacy and the foundation on which South Australia's public health system has been built. Public health law and public health practitioners can rightly lay claim to changing the world for the better. But the world keeps changing and not always for the better. And because this is so, we must be ever vigilant and must keep making sure that our public health laws and our public health powers not only keep pace with our changing world but can anticipate those changes and influence them for the better. This is the core of this new legislation; the ability to keep pace with a rapidly changing world, anticipate the unexpected and have sufficient powers to take action to protect and promote health.

This was back in 2010. The minister then said:

A few short years ago no one had heard about Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome or SARS. The prospect of a global pandemic of unknown proportions sounded more like something out of a science fiction novel, but it was real and it was dangerous. The threat of SARS provided the world with a wake up call. As a result of SARS, many nations, states and provinces reviewed their public health laws to strengthen their capacities to deal with public health emergencies. The health impacts of terrorism and other mass casualty events as well as the direct possibility of pandemic influenza also spurred governments around the world to strengthen public health laws and public health capacity. Members will recall that this House dealt with emergency public health provisions when amending the Public and Environmental Health Act 1987 in 2009. These new emergency provisions have been preserved and incorporated into this Bill.

These global reviews of public health laws identified that it was not just the clear and present danger of a pandemic or other public health emergencies which confronted societies like ours. The most profound public health challenges facing us at the start of this century have changed in character from those facing 19th Century public health campaigners and those that we subsequently faced in the mid twentieth Century. This is not to say that problems with infectious diseases, sanitation, clean water and other traditional public health concerns have disappeared, far from it. They remain continuing concerns, always requiring vigilance but in many instances these classic challenges to our health are well controlled or effectively prevented by existing public health strategies and regulations.

There are now more far reaching and insidious public health challenges facing us this century.

I note the words of the World Health Organization's chief—and I am not quite sure how to pronounce his name either, so I will not even try—who has stated in previous days:

We are in unchartered territory. We have never before seen such a respiratory pathogen that is capable of community transmission but at the same time which can also be contained with the right measures.

He has noted that this has seen countries, once at odds, work together and has been a bridge for peace; for example, with the US and Iran.

I would hope that in that spirit we come together similarly to the way we debated this bill when it was in its formation of the act, with the bulk of the work in the committee stage. The principles are set out in the second reading and, with that, I indicate that we will be supporting the second reading and are looking forward to the committee stage.

I note that this is not a significant change to our current act. In fact, the piece of legislation we have before us is some six pages, including a title page. It has a series of tweaks, if you like, to what is currently operating and it has the benefit of the amendment that was made the last time we debated the bill that then became this act that the Hon. Michelle Lensink moved at the time regarding the review by the Social Development Committee to form much of the basis of the recommendations that have been made.

There has been a lot of media conjecture about coronavirus. I note the Hon. Tung Ngo posted today a picture from the Costco supermarket of an enormous amount of toilet paper being purchased by one local resident—hundreds and hundreds of rolls of toilet paper apparently. People are prepping as if the end of the world is nigh. I think there is an overreaction in the community but we are wise to take this very seriously.

It is something that does demand urgency and our attention, but I am not sure that we need to over-egg the pudding or be buying hundreds and hundreds of toilet rolls at Costco—rather, taking safe and sensible precautionary measures, as are outlined in this bill, as are supported by the work of the Social Development Committee and as has been brought to our attention by the fine work of our health professionals in this state, including the public health officer.

I note the Hon. John Darley has flagged an amendment, and the Greens will be supporting that particular amendment. I note those who have expressed concerns—and I shared those concerns upon reading media reports of this particular piece of legislation before viewing the legislation itself—that civil liberties will be impinged upon. That was certainly one of my concerns the first time I was involved in a debate on the bill that formed this act that we are now looking at amending.

I note and draw to the attention of members the enormous amount of work that was done in the formation of this act, back almost 10 years ago, by a number of members of the parliament and many stakeholder groups that ensured that there was the appropriate balance between civil liberties and public health. We are not starting from scratch here. We are not creating the wheel; we are simply allowing that wheel to operate upon this new road. And that new road is, as has been outlined by the head of the World Health Organization, a situation that we did not anticipate

We have in this act before us and in previous debates on this act before us, debated SARS, debated HIV/AIDS, debated many public health challenges and concerns and have been informed by not just decades but well over 100 years of information and advancement in public health. We are not starting from scratch with this very small, six-page bill. We are not throwing out our civil liberties.

While I would agree with Claire O'Connor, who said that it would be wonderful to have a human rights bill in this state, I note that this is not a significant impingement upon civil liberties contained within this bill that has not been well canvassed and is not already present in our current legislation. It is not without recourse. People do have the ability to appeal decisions through a variety of formats. People are accorded human rights and civil liberties, but also we are addressing this new challenge in public health that was not foreseen 10 years ago and is now currently presenting itself as a challenge before us.

So I would hope that people will enter this debate with the history that has gone before in the development of this act clear and present in their minds or, if it is not, that they will acquaint themselves with that history very quickly before we proceed into the committee stage.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:48): I rise to indicate my support for the bill. I understand the bill will allow for verbal orders and directions to be made requiring people to take certain action such as undergoing a medical examination, remaining at a particular location or to be detained in cases where urgent action is required. These verbal orders will then be followed up with a written order within 48 hours.

The bill also allows for notices to be served in ways other than directly to the person. I understand this is to facilitate serving the order to a person via their doctor or other third party. Where detention orders need to be extended, application will need to be made to the Magistrates Court rather than the Supreme Court, under the bill.

I find it peculiar that the government has said that this bill is not a knee-jerk reaction to the coronavirus and yet we have suspended standing orders specifically to deal with this bill as a matter of priority. I do not disagree that the Chief Public Health Officer should be given these powers and I commend the government for acting on this community health issue so quickly. However, I have a small issue with clause 6 of the bill, which refers to the power to require detention. The bill currently allows an oral order for someone to be detained which will be followed up with a written order within 48 hours.

Forty-eight hours is a very long time to leave a person waiting for information as to why they have been detained and what their rights are. The person is unlikely to know or understand what act they have been detained under or what their appeal rights are. I have no issue with the 48-hour window in clauses 3, 4 and 5, which relate to oral orders requiring a person to undergo an examination or test, requiring a person to undertake counselling, or the power to give directions; however, clause 6 could see a person be detained for up to 48 hours with no (or very little) information as to why they were detained, other than what is said when a verbal order is given.

I would hate to be detained and have to wait two days in order to find out why I have been detained and what I can do about it. The Chief Public Health Officer should be able to provide this information within 24 hours. Given the verbal order still stands even if the legislated time frame is not met, it will not pose any public health risk to have this changed to 24 hours. This will set the standard as to when this information should be provided to those who have been detained. I would be interested in hearing the government's response to this concern and flag that I may move an amendment to this provision.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (15:51): I would like to thank honourable members for their contributions on the bill. I appreciate that members only received access to the bill in a briefing in the last 24 hours, so I thank them for their support in facilitating passage of the legislation. In that regard—and this is partly in response to the comments from the Hon. Mr Pangallo—the government indicated that we were happy to let the bill lay on the table and be considered in the next sitting week but on the understanding that, if public health circumstances required it, we reserved the right to recall parliament.

It was the consensus of the parliament that this bill should be supported this week, and we thank the parliament for turning its mind to that. In that regard, I might segue to the comments from the Hon. Tammy Franks in terms of the history of the bill. In considering this legislation, I was mindful, because I think I was there when it happened, and it was to the great honour of this council that we said, yes, public health is very important. So are civil liberties. I would make the point that perhaps one of the most significant innovations in this bill is actually a civil liberties initiative.

Under the 2011 legislation, all the decisions are reviewable, either by the South Australian Civil Administrative Appeals Tribunal or by the Supreme Court, but they are only reviewable—they are not authorised by. One of the protections we put in place in these amendments is that, in relation to a case where a person could have been exposed to a controlled notifiable condition, if their detention is to go beyond 48 hours then that needs to be confirmed by a magistrate. That is completely a civil liberties initiative to have the actions reviewed. At the same time as we believe it is necessary to increase the scope of people who can be subject to orders, for that wider circle we believe it is appropriate to have an additional form of oversight on the potential impact on their civil liberties.

If I could continue to reflect on the Hon. Tammy Franks' contribution, I completely agree with her that the 2011 bill is a good foundation. This bill builds on that foundation. It is completely within the spirit of the 2011 legislation passed by this parliament and the honourable member does us a service by reminding us that when we passed that legislation in 2011 it was in recognition that it would not be set in stone. Public health laws cannot be set and forget, they have to evolve with the wider environment.

In relation to communicable diseases, we have seen in recent years that they are very challenging. Whether it is HIV/AIDS or SARS, whatever it might be, many of the challenges that we now face in public health are related to communicable diseases. I can recall an historian telling me that the most significant public health initiative that had saved the most lives was actually reticulated water.

We had a very bad health record, particularly amongst infants, in the late 1800s. It was through reticulated water and sewerage that Adelaide became a much healthier place. Public health historically has been a key component in protecting and saving the lives of South Australians: it was last century, it will be this century and beyond. The challenges change and so does the environment, and the Hon. Tammy Franks, I think, did us a service by reminding us of that.

In relation to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition as to whether or not the reform measures that the government is pursuing are consistent with the capacity of the health system to respond to the challenges in front of it, right from day one the government has made it clear that patient safety and high quality and sustainable health services are a priority, and that will continue to be the case. The health authorities, as I said in question time, are developing scenario plans at both the public health level and the LHM level.

In relation to the comments of the Hon. Frank Pangallo on whether this government is being honest and whether, to be frank, a whole conga line of governments in the world are being honest with people, the people of Australia, the people of South Australia, as is my responsibility, or not, I have never sought to downplay the risk of COVID-19 and neither have I sought to overstate it because, to be frank, I do not know. Nobody knows what the impact of COVID-19 will be on this community and communities around the world.

The fact of the matter is that while we hope for the best we need to plan for whatever eventuality might ensue. I am very confident that our clinicians, led by the Chief Public Health Officer, are well prepared to deal with a range of scenarios. Key to being prepared is to ensure that our public health experts have the tools they need when they need them.

As the Hon. Tammy Franks said, we need to keep evolving the laws to respond to the challenges. The amendments before us draw both on the experience of the public health officials in recent years but particularly on their reflections about what tools they might need in the months ahead. It is very important that when swift action is required our health experts will not be tied up in red tape. In my view, the laws are a strengthening of public health laws to better equip South Australia. They are tough but they are measured. They are necessary to protect public safety and they respect the need for appropriate protections for individuals.

I reiterate my thanks to the council for taking briefings and being willing to consider this legislation expeditiously. I make the point that the Social Development Committee is undertaking a review of the Public Health Act and it may well be that the committee considers the wider implications of emerging public health challenges and—again, picking up the Hon. Tammy Franks' remarks—they may not just relate to communicable diseases.

As a parliament, we need to be forward-looking and to anticipate the changes that we will face in the future. Of course, from time to time we will need to come back and tweak the legislation to strengthen it where new challenges emerge, and I thank the council for facilitating consideration.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Stakeholders have raised with the opposition that section 66 of the act appears already to give rise to the powers that are required to manage the response to public health emergencies. I have a few questions on that. I might ask them all as they are interrelated, which may help in providing answers:

1. Can the minister outline how these amendments interact with the Chief Public Health Officer's broader powers under section 66?

2. Does the Chief Public Health Officer already have the power to detain somebody under section 66?

3. Is there any limitation on the actions of the Chief Public Health Officer that can be taken under section 66?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, can you repeat the last one?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The last of those three questions was: is there any limitation on the actions the Chief Public Health Officer can take under section 66?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the primary distinction between section 66 and part 10, which is where this bill focuses its attention, is that section 66 relates to notifiable conditions and part 10 relates to controlled notifiable conditions. Controlled notifiable conditions are conditions that are likely to have pandemic potential, so there is a more acute need for a public health response. Can you repeat number 2?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Does the Chief Public Health Officer already have the power to detain somebody under section 66?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On the reading of the section, section 66(2) provides that, without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the Chief Public Health Officer or authorised officer can take a range of actions. I imagine that, in the broad sense in relation to a notifiable condition, there could be a detention—that is the advice I have received—but part 10 is the detailed detention provisions. As a person with a distant law degree, I suspect the courts would say, 'Parliament has been clear that, in relation to controlled notifiable conditions, part 10 applies. We are not going to let you use part 6 to avoid part 10.'

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We were told this legislation was born out of some of the department's recommendations to the Social Development Committee's review on the Public Health Act; however, I think it is clear the recommendations provided to the review are much less extensive than what is included in the legislation. From the briefing, the opposition understands a much broader list was formed in 2018, but this list at the time was not recommended to the Social Development Committee. Can a copy of that broader list of recommendations from 2018 that was not provided to the committee be provided to the council?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am happy to do that and I might do that, if it is agreeable, through the Social Development Committee. It is relevant because, as I said in my summing-up remarks, it may well be that the Social Development Committee, in its current consideration of the social development act, perhaps might even reflect on what we have done here today to see if there is more that needs to be done. In anticipation of some concerns that have been raised with me by other members, there may well be other issues that come out of debate. I am more than happy to provide that 2018 summary.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can the minister outline if there have been any instances of individuals in South Australia exposed or potentially exposed to coronavirus where this legislation may have been able to be used?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: We certainly know of some. There have been people with—sorry, are you talking in relation to coronavirus or are you talking generally?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might clarify for the minister. Have there been instances of any individuals who have either been exposed or potentially exposed in South Australia where the provisions that we are debating today may have come into operation and been utilised?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think that is hypothetical. As the government has indicated, there have been three confirmed coronavirus cases in South Australia. All three of them were admitted to the Royal Adelaide Hospital and put in isolation until they were clear of symptoms and, for that matter, tested negative to coronavirus. As the government has indicated, there were investigations undertaken, particularly in relation to the first two because they were present in the community. The third case did not raise the same issues because the person was admitted to Australia through the repatriation of Australians from the Diamond Princess cruise and housed at Howard Springs until the end of the isolation period.

Of course, one of the cases was a South Australian who actually developed symptoms whilst she was in Howard Springs and she was brought to Adelaide, as was the undertaking by states and territories in relation to the establishment of the Howard Springs facility. Certainly, the act is relevant to those first two cases and it is relevant in the general application.

In terms of directions, detention and its coercive or mandatory elements, this is legislation that we think is likely to be very rarely used because South Australians trust their public health clinicians. If public health clinicians give them advice that, for their own health and those of others, they need to take a certain action, overwhelmingly they will accept that advice and comply. In the rare cases, though, it is important for legislation to be in place to require actions to be taken to protect public safety. That is what the legislation is here for.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Was the Courts Administration Authority consulted on the legislation prior to its introduction?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The Attorney-General's department has been involved, and we assume that all appropriate conversations were had within their portfolio.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is the minister aware if SA Police have been consulted on the legislation and what has been their reaction, including whether they are prepared to undertake the duties prescribed to them?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes, the police were consulted. There is no fundamental change in the expectation on police in this legislation, and I acknowledge and thank the Commissioner of Police for his public comments today that police are happy to continue to work with SA Health in implementing public health law. It has been the case for some time that 'authorised people' under the South Australian Public Health Act include a police officer.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In the briefing that I attended yesterday, I did ask the minister this, but I would like to repeat it for the public record. He has alluded to it. What provisions will there be to review these particular changes, and how will the Social Development Committee be involved in that? If you could clarify your commitment to ensuring such a review takes place on the public record, I would appreciate that.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I should say that I am predicating my comments on the understanding that the Social Development Committee has not finalised its consideration. I would certainly hope that there is still a window of opportunity for the committee to consider any suggestions that might come out of this debate or elsewhere.

In terms of the review of the legislation, one of the things the committee might want to consider is whether an ongoing review, in other words a review every five years, might be appropriate. The review that the Social Development Committee has undertaken was initiated by a clause of this act?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes. I note that that review that the Social Development Committee has undertaken was initiated through an amendment made in the committee stage of the debate when this act was a bill that was moved by the Hon. Michelle Lensink and supported by the crossbenches. At the time, it was not put into the original legislation by the government. I find that usually opposition members of parliament are much more open to seeing such reviews, but I would like a commitment now from the government that that spirit they had in opposition will continue in government.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I was a bit bemused as to why a review of an act that was passed in 2011 and required a review after five years was being done in 2020. Even though I have been in this place a long time, I have not understood all the mysteries yet. Let me reiterate that I would encourage the Social Development Committee to think about the value of an ongoing review. I suppose, considering that this review is expressed in terms of five years since the commencement of the act, you would have to find some time frame, but in the context of evolving public health challenges, I would be interested to hear the Social Development Committee's view.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I was not suggesting that the minister was deliberately withholding any information in relation to COVID-19, although when we get to framing legislation like this, particularly after commonwealth ministers meet, I am sure that they are given a whole series of scenarios and reports about the severity or what impacts an epidemic could have on this country. Does the minister or SA Health have information on how many deaths could occur in Australia and in South Australia in a pandemic?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I personally have not seen it, but there have been discussions amongst health ministers about the work of the Doherty group or Doherty institute, I think it is called, in Melbourne, a group of highly skilled clinicians who do modelling. That is extremely valuable, but let us be clear that they are modelling a huge range of scenarios. It is my understanding that some of them would predict a coronavirus response that, if you like, is within the realm of a major influenza event, and some of the scenarios are much more significant.

As I said earlier, our public health officials are considering a range of scenarios. The burden on the public health system and on the South Australian community generally may well be significant, it may well be challenging. That is why we need to be taking the steps that we can now to prepare.

In terms of preparation, I really stress how important the small things are. If we as a community can be particularly diligent in being vaccinated against vaccine-preventable diseases, if we as a community can lift our game in terms of personal hygiene practices—washing hands, coughing into elbows—and basically just try to make our community a healthier place, that is very important preparation for whatever comes.

That is why we are continuing—and when I say 'we' I would like to reference again Associate Professor Nicola Spurrier and the public health team—to take the lead and are encouraging South Australians to be prepared for coronavirus, and part of that starts at home.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can I just take you back to the worst-case scenarios. Are you aware of a report by the former Reserve Bank board member Professor Warwick McKibbin that shows that up to 96,000 Australians could die in the event of a worst-case epidemic? In a mild epidemic it would be 21,000 Australians, globally 68 million. You are saying that you have not seen any figures. Have any been put to you?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not think it is helpful to go through a series of scenarios. I am not aware of Professor McKibbin's report. There is a wide range of speculation about what scenarios South Australia, Australia and the world will face, and I think is important for us to plan for a wide range of scenarios. Certainly do not assume a relatively light impact and do not assume the Armageddon scenarios some are predicting.

I would like to take the opportunity to reassure South Australians that Australia has a world-class public health fraternity. There was a report prepared late last year that assessed the relative readiness of nations around the world for a pandemic. My recollection was that it rated 196 countries and Australia was rated number four. We do face challenges, but I believe that we have invested heavily—through laws, through public health teams, through health networks—in a world-class health system in all its breadth, from public health right through to intensive care units.

We are well placed to respond to whatever comes. It is really important that people back their public health clinicians. There is no need to be alarmed. We appreciate that people are anxious, but the people of South Australia should be assured that their safety is our paramount priority. This parliament is today making its contribution towards that preparedness, which I believe will help protect and save lives.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I do not think anyone is at all questioning the quality of care that we have in our medical institutions. You spoke about an Armageddon-type situation. This legislation actually addresses Armageddon-type situations. This is quite draconian legislation. I was asking whether you have the modelling that could justify this type of legislation in the event that we had quite a serious pandemic, which it looks like we are approaching at this point.

Also, in the event that we have large numbers of people self-reporting for the likelihood of COVID-19, where will these people go? Where would they be housed over a period of time? Is there a contingency plan for where large numbers of people will be contained?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would just like to make the point, which I think I made in question time, that most people who experience COVID-19 will have relatively moderate symptoms and their symptoms may not require them to be hospitalised. I would just like to challenge the assumption in the honourable member's question that a person with coronavirus needs hospitalisation.

In particular, the bill relates to steps to avoid the spread of disease, so it is often people who, as far we know, may not have COVID-19 or any other controlled notifiable condition. What we are trying to do is be prepared to isolate those people while we await analysis of their condition and monitor the progress of their condition.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The bill seeks powers of detention. What I am asking is: if there are large numbers—and we have to assume that, considering the implications of this bill—where will these people be detained?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I make the point that the powers in terms of detention and direction are already in the legislation. They are already used for controlled notifiable conditions. It is my expectation that the vast majority of people who have COVID-19 (coronavirus) are likely to have moderate symptoms. In terms of detention, the coercive use of detention, which is a power that is currently in the act and is being maintained through these amendments, will be used extremely rarely. As I indicated earlier, the vast majority of people who receive advice from public health clinicians comply with that advice and there is no need to pursue warrants for people who are willing to be there.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The honourable member is not answering the question. The question quite simply is: where will these people be detained? If they are in large numbers, where will they be detained? Will there be a specific facility that will be established, much like we saw in China that they established in seven days? Will they be required to be at home and how will that be monitored? Surely, under this contingency, the government is looking at where large numbers of people will be detained? Where will they be detained? At home, in a hospital, in another facility?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I want to reiterate what I have said. Some people who are subject to orders will be asked to self-isolate at their own home, wherever that might be. There will be people who will be asked to go to a specified place such as a hospital or a quarantine facility. We are taking steps to prepare for an increasing number of cases and that will include dedicated facilities.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Where would those quarantine facilities be? Also, if people are required to self-detain, how will they be monitored to ensure that they do not breach those orders?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think it is important to see the act as it was intended to offer a staged approach, so a person could be asked to self-isolate and not have an order imposed. It is only likely that an order would be imposed under the act if there was some concern about the willingness of the person to comply, particularly if they have demonstrated noncompliance. In those circumstances, an order under the act may well be imposed and an order under the act would be monitored.

Initially that could be facilitated by the Communicable Diseases Control Branch within the Department for Health and Wellbeing, but it could be supplemented as needed. If the risk to public health could not be managed by an order requiring self-isolation, then detention may be required. As the amendments to the bill make clear, that detention could be in a hospital or a quarantine facility.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Could people be required to wear monitoring devices to ensure that they do not break orders?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am not in a position to rule out any particular strategy—rule it in or rule it out. Obviously, every case has to be seen as a case-by-case matter. Again, my expectation would be that the courts would see the use of a home detention bracelet as a form of detention and therefore subject to the provisions of section 77, but I would need to seek more detailed advice on that.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: So just to clarify that, that could be an option?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I said, I do not think I am in a position to rule anything in or rule anything out.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can I ask the minister what other jurisdictions—the other states—are doing about detainment orders? Are their measures consistent with what is being proposed in South Australia?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It will not surprise the council that the provisions in other legislation are quite diverse, but all of the relevant health legislation does involve provisions for people to be detained, isolated or quarantined.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Just a quick question to the minister: what is the current message from the government in terms of if people are suspecting they have got coronavirus? What is the general message right now?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: We ask people who have been at particular risk of possible exposure and think they might have symptoms of coronavirus to contact their GP ahead of time and let them know that they would like to come in and be assessed for coronavirus. The GP may well make arrangements to receive them or alternatively, as I said earlier, the domiciliary nurse service for SA Pathology could be engaged.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: So the message is to ring their own GP or to rock up at their own GP?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: We are asking them not to present at a GP clinic without having contacted the GP in advance, then arrangements can be made.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Following on from that answer, currently there is no panic yet, but I assume that if this virus gets out of hand the government needs to be clear on the message, because currently people are quite unclear about what to do.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the honourable member for his question. It is certainly my hope that South Australians will stay calm and will not panic. In terms of the honourable member's question about if there is a situation where we have an escalating need for testing and assessment, that is where the dedicated clinics at the hospitals would be valuable. In those circumstances, the clinics would be set up—they would be opened up—and then, as you say, we would need to communicate clearly to the public in those circumstances that no longer is your primary pathway to a GP, we would suggest you go to one of the dedicated clinics.

The government certainly recognises that we need to continue to communicate with the public. In that regard the world has changed, and one of the ways that social media can actually earn its place in the world is by putting out information for people to keep them up-to-date with public health messages. In that regard, we are learning something every day. WeChat, the Chinese social media platform, has been extremely useful to get public health messages out to the Chinese community in their own language.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Following with another question from that answer: do our GPs understand or know what to do? If they have someone rocking up or if someone calls on the GP, do they know what to do in terms of are they passing on that patient to another area, or do they know what to do in terms of welcoming them into the surgery room, or what is next?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In terms of both advice for professionals and for health consumers, the commonwealth has a dedicated helpline on coronavirus, which is recommended. Also, the commonwealth government website has fact sheets and updates both general and industry specific. In relation to GPs in South Australia, GPs are regularly updated on developments, including what measures they should take within their own surgeries if they are to look to test a person who is suspected of having coronavirus.

In terms of specific clinical advice, the public health clinicians of the Department for Health and Wellbeing maintain an ongoing series of public health alerts and they are provided to GPs to provide them with any relevant clinical updates.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can I ask the minister how many daily tests can be conducted by SA Pathology for COVID-19?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I might attempt to answer that question and one of my good officers might check the answer and perhaps provide an update to the honourable member and to the other place if I am not correct. My understanding is that SA Pathology is currently testing around 250 people a day and that it has the capacity to test 1,000.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What is the turnaround for the results?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I was talking to one of my constituents today who said that they got their test within a day. To my understanding, it is a day or two, which is a significant advancement. When we first needed to start testing for coronavirus earlier this year we needed to send our samples to Victoria which led to a delay, so I am delighted that SA Pathology not only stepped up to acquire the technology through their Victorian counterparts but has gone above and beyond in terms of establishing a domiciliary nurse service and introducing the broader testing that I mentioned earlier in relation to respiratory conditions.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Has SA Pathology requested additional staff for tests to be carried out in the event of a pandemic situation?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My recollection is that it is standard practice for SA Pathology to ramp up in relation to the influenza season. I am sure that they will flex as needed.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: So are you saying, yes, they have requested or will put on extra staff? Is that the answer?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, sorry, I am not aware if there has been a request.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: When you say they will ramp up, does that mean that they will require extra staff to cope?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: What I was suggesting was that SA Pathology already has flex capacity. My understanding is that the additional staff who are put on in relation to the flu season are within its ongoing budget. Obviously, depending on what the impact of coronavirus is in South Australia, the health sector, the Department for Health and Wellbeing, the health portfolio will need to look at whether they need to make requests for additional resources.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: As we are approaching the flu season, is there a concern in SA Health that there could be a lot of confusion between the common cold, flu and coronavirus?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: To be frank, we already face that dilemma. There is a range of symptoms that are common to a range of medical conditions. That is why we ask people to be alert to their symptoms but to take the opportunity to have their symptoms tested either with a local GP or at an emergency department. Also, a lot of Australians use online services such as Symptom Checker. It certainly is important for people to be alert to symptoms.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Can the government give an assurance that all medical clinics in South Australia will have the necessary protective clothing, etc., to protect the doctors and staff in those clinics?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It goes to the discussion we were having in question time about preparedness. Our state public health officers are working—within South Australia we have a range of stakeholders and particularly with our interstate and federal colleagues, the main medical stockpile is actually a national one which I understand is managed by the commonwealth government. A lot of work is being done collaboratively to meet the ongoing needs. As I said earlier, there are challenges and there will be challenges.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My question to the minister is: the legislation across this and subsequent clauses requires a written direction to follow oral directions within 48 hours, but that includes a caveat that a failure to serve a notice will not affect the validity of this order. What, then, is the purpose of requiring a written direction when the validity of an oral direction is not affected, regardless of that?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the provision that the honourable member refers to is a fairly standard legislative provision. I think it is important to understand that the written notice to be given within 48 hours is a written notice of confirmation. In terms of the validity provision in parentheses, it is our expectation that normally the noncompliance would relate to timing.

The provision makes it clear that the timing of the written confirmation does not affect the validity of the order. The less common circumstance would be that the written confirmation has not been served. One of the scenarios one can imagine is that it has not been served because the person who is subject to the order seeks to avoid it being served, but it is written primarily to underscore that it is written confirmation and to ensure that an issue in relation to timing does not call the order into question.

Clause passed.

Clauses 4 and 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Darley–1]—

Page 4, line 25 [clause 6(2), inserted subsection (3a)]—Delete '48' and substitute '24'

I have spoken about the amendment in my second reading speech and my concern was that a maximum of 48 days for a person to be detained without having reasons is an extraordinarily long time and therefore my amendment is to change that from a maximum of 48 days to 24 days.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The provision relates to people who could have been exposed to a controlled notifiable condition. Public health officers are likely to need time to investigate the circumstances and assess the scale of the risk. The government is advised by public health clinicians that 24 hours would not be sufficient for this investigation. By way of clarification, the honourable member referred to 48 days and 24 days. I would stress: this is 48 hours or 24 hours.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the government provide some further information about why 24 hours is not adequate, as opposed to 48 hours? And we are talking about hours, not days.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: We are talking about trying to anticipate what is needed. In relation to people who have a controlled condition and people who may have been exposed to a person with a controlled notifiable condition, the Chief Public Health Officer has the capacity to put orders in place without having this, shall we say, confirmation process. As I was saying in my comments earlier, the government is supporting respect for individual rights by providing for a confirmation of the order within 48 hours.

Because the contact is not as direct, the public health officers will be faced with a dilemma of having to collect information. For example, that might be information from the commonwealth government about seating arrangements on an incoming flight. It might be information from a shipping line about the configuration of cabins on a cruise.

I think it is quite foreseeable that it may be challenging for public health officers to obtain the relevant information within two days. I would not be surprised if they go to the magistrate seeking an extension, not having all the information they need. In that context, the magistrate may well have to say, 'I am willing to grant an extension of the order for the following period,' to allow that further work to be done.

The advice to me is that 48 hours is an appropriate time frame within which public health officials should be expected to be able to gather at least the basic information to go before a magistrate. I would also highlight the point that I suspect this 48-hour period does not discriminate between the weekend and weekdays. It would be very challenging to prepare a case for a magistrate within 24 hours.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: SA-Best will not be supporting this amendment, and I concur with the comments made by the health minister. Certainly, knowing the backlog that occurs in our courts, it would be a very difficult and onerous task to expect that to happen within such a short period of time, so we will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the opposition will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The legislation specifies that the Chief Public Health Officer can detain individuals in hospitals or quarantine facilities. Which of our public hospitals are fully prepared to immediately roll out a coronavirus specific clinic at present, and what will be the specific locations and the intake of each of those clinics?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that all of our metropolitan hospitals have the capacity to be quarantine hospitals.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In addition to all our metropolitan hospitals being able to be quarantine facilities, what other facilities have been identified as part of the government's preparedness to date as quarantine facilities under the act?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am not going to go into all the scenarios and all the plans within each of the scenarios, but as well as the SA Health network, we are looking beyond.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will make it a much more targeted question. Is the minister aware of any facilities outside our metropolitan hospitals that will be able to become quarantine facilities, to date?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If the leader is agreeable, I would suggest that we take that on notice and provide it to the house for its consideration tomorrow. I will provide him with a personal copy as well.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might just place some further questions on notice, so that a full and comprehensive answer can be given. I place on notice:

1. What is the intake capacity across all the clinics or facilities that have been identified as quarantine facilities?

2. What categories of people are staffing these clinics or facilities?

3. How secure and contained are these clinics or facilities?

4. What decontamination resources and protocols have been established at these clinics and facilities?

5. Who will be responsible for providing security over individuals subject to detention orders in hospitals or secure facilities, and who is responsible for ensuring these people are adequately protected from contracting the disease when they provide this security?

I put on notice the question about providing security at clinics. Do we have a specific body or group in mind that will provide security to enforce these detention orders?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Our primary body of enforcement is authorised officers under the Public Health Act.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can the minister please outline who they are?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Under the South Australian Public Health Act 2011, section 43 provides that a minister may appoint a suitably qualified person to be a state authorised officer. The powers of the act are expressed in terms of authorised officers being empowered to act. In relation to warrants, police are identified as authorised officers. Section 47(2) provides:

In the exercise of powers under this act, an authorised officer may be accompanied by such assistants as may be necessary or desirable in the circumstances.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Has any planning commenced into how, if authorised officers will be needed and if they are needed in significant numbers, the other areas of government will manage backfilling the people who have to act as authorised officers?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that most, if not all, state authorised officers are officers of the Department for Health and Wellbeing.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand that, but I assume these are not officers who are just waiting to become authorised officers? I assume they have a day job at the moment and they are doing important things and functions for the state. Has there been any preparedness and planning as to how those functions would be backfilled?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The planning that has been undertaken anticipates that the state authorised officers would be able to engage a range of resources. I would also highlight that the act talks about local government authorised officers. Depending on what scenario we will actually face, we may well engage local government authorised officers.

I suppose it is reminiscent of the recent bushfires. The capacity for Australian governments and communities to work together collaboratively was demonstrated by the response to the bushfires, and I think we are seeing the same spirit of collaboration in relation to the coronavirus.

It was a privilege to be part of the COAG Health Council last Friday, when political leaders across Australia and across the full spectrum of political opinion were working together hand in glove to make sure that we protect Australians in the face of COVID-19. I would certainly highlight the public health expertise of local government. There are other resources that public health would look to engage and that, as I said earlier, is covered by section 47.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What procedures are in place for decontamination where an individual subject to a detention order needs to be physically restrained? Will those responsible for restraining the individual then be subject to a quarantine period themselves?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The Department for Health and Wellbeing would not put somebody in a situation where they need to engage with somebody who might have a controlled notifiable condition without personal protective equipment. The issue of that personal protective equipment being breached would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The minister probably would have seen concerns raised publicly by Dr Rod Pearce this morning regarding contamination procedures. What assurances can the minister provide clinicians like Dr Rod Pearce that appropriate protocols and protections will be put in place for clinicians and other personnel visiting individuals who have been detained in their place of residence?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I refer back to the comments I made in question time which highlighted the innovative approach of SA Pathology by introducing a domiciliary nursing service. This reduced the need for people in need of testing to come into the clinics and the like. We will continue to work with GPs and other primary healthcare services in terms of responding to COVID-19. That will include working cooperatively on personal protective equipment and other services that are required. As I have mentioned a number of times, the range of scenarios is significant and broad.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I just have one question in relation to children. Children are defined in section 72 of the South Australian Public Health Act 2011 as being 'under 16 years of age'. How will they be detained? Will they be detained as adults? Will they be apart from their families? Will families be kept together?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the honourable member for his question. In part 2 of the act, under section 14—Specific principles—Parts 10 and 11, there is a whole range of objects, principles and interactions with other acts that are detailed. In section 14, where it talks about the specific principles for parts 10 and 11—and what we are considering tonight is part of part 10—it provides:

…a person who may be the subject of an order, direction or requirement under either Part is entitled to expect—

(c) insofar as is reasonably practicable and appropriate, to be given a reasonable opportunity to participate in decision-making processes that relate to the person on an individual basis, and to be given reasons for any decisions made on such a basis; and

Subsection (8):

(8) Any requirement restricting the liberty of 2 or more members of the 1 family should ensure, so far as is desirable and reasonably practicable and so far as is appropriate to the requirements for the protection of public health, that the family members reside at the same place.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Are there any provisions like other legislation to ensure that people detained under this act cannot be laid off, discriminated against or can be assured of receiving paid sick leave during periods of detention?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The matter of workplace laws is a matter for the federal government. On the Fair Work Ombudsman website, in relation to coronavirus and Australian workplace laws, it states in a Q&A format:

What if an employee is stuck overseas or required to be quarantined?

The answer offered is:

Employees should contact their employer immediately if they are unable to attend work because they can't return from overseas or are required to enter quarantine because of the coronavirus.

You can find up-to-date information on quarantine requirements on the Department of Health's website.

The Fair Work Act does not have specific rules for these kinds of situations so employees and employers need to come to their own arrangement. This may include:

taking annual leave

taking any other leave available to them (such as long service leave or any other leave available under an award, enterprise agreement or contract of employment)

arranging any other paid or unpaid leave by agreement between the employee and the employer.

It then gives reference to a range of fact sheets in relation to different forms of leave. This is an issue that has been highlighted in the COAG Health Council. We certainly appreciate that complying with orders might have a significant impact on the lives of individuals. The South Australian Public Health Act recognises that in considering an order the circumstances of the individual need to be considered because of that very reason.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In the examples the minister was quoting earlier in relation to the fair work commissioner and people who were stranded overseas, people were asked to take 14 days' time off in order to ensure that either they were or were not contaminated by COVID-19. Fourteen days is a bit different to what we are talking about here in a forced detention situation of between 30 and 60 days. So should there not be protections built in to ensure that people's livelihoods—jobs—are going to be protected?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would refer honourable members again to the principles in section 14, which includes in subsection (5)(f) the principle:

that the least restrictive means necessary to prevent the spread of disease be adopted when isolating or quarantining a person at the person's home or on other premises under this Act;

On my understanding that would also relate to duration. The current understanding is that the incubation period for coronavirus is 14 days, so in that context, whilst the act says orders of up to 30 days or up to 60 days, my expectation would be a typical order would be 14 days.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In the event that it is longer than 14 days, and this is what I alluded to in my second reading speech, does the minister concede that there could well be unintended consequences here for individuals?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I said, governments across Australia are aware of the potential impact on individuals of a response to the coronavirus. At this stage, as I quoted from the Fair Work Ombudsman's fact sheet, it is not dealt with under Australian workplace laws. I believe we will need to consider the challenges for people as they comply with orders as we move forward.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Minister, how will you consider those challenges to people? By way of further amendments to protect them?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think it is there in section 14. When it talks about what is reasonably practicable, that includes how the person is going to support themselves. We are talking about 30 and 60 days, and you are acknowledging that 14 is well below the maximum of the act, but still it is not without challenge for a person to self-isolate for 14 days.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Again, there are issues there. What do you consider is 14 days? They may not have 14 days of accrued sick leave or holiday pay. They may have just returned from a holiday. They could quite possibly be penalised financially as a result of an order that says that they could have been exposed rather than that they are exposed or that they do have it. In the event that you do have large numbers of people caught in this, what would be the situation for them to explain that to their employers? Their jobs could well be at risk. While we say that, perhaps I should also not just look at the private sector but what would apply in the Public Service sector?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the honourable member for his question. We have been advised by the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment on the public sector workplace guidelines for coronavirus that employees may be entitled to access various types of unpaid and paid leave, depending on the circumstances, including sick leave, annual leave, carer's leave, special leave with or without pay, long service leave and retention leave. Notice and evidence requirements may need to be relaxed, and the commissioner's determination in relation to leave will be relevant.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: That is quite generous and good for public servants to know, but what about private sector employees?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I said, Australian workplace laws are primarily the province of the federal government. We would certainly hope that Australian businesses would work supportively with their employees. As I said before, this is a challenge that we face collaboratively. Just as the response to the bushfires demonstrated cooperation across the different levels of government and across different sectors of the economy, I am sure that would be the case with coronavirus as well.

That does not mean that we will not have challenges, but I certainly put it to the council that to have a prescriptive entitlement regime under a public health piece of legislation would be extremely problematic. If we have to face a range of scenarios for this condition alone, then consider the range of conditions and the scenarios that might flow from each of them and try to draw together from all of those what the various entitlement permutations might be required, I think that is not manageable within a statutory regime. We have to rely on the goodwill and the common sense of governments and other employers to be supportive of their employees and the rest of the community as these challenges are faced.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: That is all well and good if that happens, relying on the goodwill, but we know that that does not always apply in the workplace. Will you give at least an assurance that you will undertake further discussions with your commonwealth counterparts in relation to at least trying to look at ways that jobs and incomes could be protected?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I said, this issue was specifically discussed at the COAG Health Council, and I am more than happy to give the council an undertaking that I will write to the relevant federal minister highlighting these issues.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I have one last question that probably also relates to a previous question in a previous clause. In terms of ages, do we assume that over 16 is considered an adult under this legislation?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Under section 72(4) a child is defined as a person under 16 years of age. Again, referring to the specific principles in section 14 which relate to part 10, which we are currently discussing, subsection (5)(d) provides:

…a person who may be the subject of an order, direction or requirement under either Part is entitled to expect—

(d) to be allowed to decide freely for him or herself on an informed basis whether or not to undergo medical treatment or, in a case involving a child under the age of 16 years, to have his or her parent or guardian allowed to decide freely on an informed basis whether or not the child should undergo medical treatment;

So 16 is the threshold for this act.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have one question on clause 7. Are there any changes to the Chief Public Health Officer's powers over directing the police commissioner or other police officers or any changes to the level of force sanctioned when executing a warrant?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that there is no change to the relationship between the CPHO and the police under these amendments.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (8) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (17:31): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.