Bills

COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Received from the House of Assembly and read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (11:08): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading explanation and detailed explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading them.

Leave granted.

Mr President, I am pleased to introduce the COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill 2020. The Bill seeks to ensure the safe and efficient functioning of Government and mitigate the economic impacts on the State throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. It also promotes general community safety by adopting measures that will support social distancing and other community restrictions in line with health advice.

The Government notes that some of the measures proposed in this Bill are extraordinary. This is why the Bill is divided into four different types of amendments. First, Part 2 of the Bill creates a number of general modifications to existing state law. Second, Schedule 1 of the Bill contains special provisions relating to the detention of certain protected persons. Third, Schedule 2 of the Bill provides for the temporary modification of the operation of particular state laws. Fourth, Schedule 3 of the Bill makes related amendments to the Emergency Management Act 2004, Payroll Tax Act 2009 and the South Australian Public Health Act 2011.

To ensure that these extraordinary measures only operate for so long as is required to deal with this public health emergency, clause 6 of the Bill provides that this Act will expire on the day fixed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette. Although provisions of Part 2, Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 may expire at an earlier date, the day fixed by the Minister for the expiry of the Act must be the earliest of either the day on which all relevant declarations relating to the outbreak of COVID-19 within South Australian have ceased (provided that the Minister is satisfied that there is no present intention to make further declarations) or 6 months from commencement.

Clause 6 further provides that, for the avoidance of doubt, the expiry of a provision of this Act under this section does not affect the validity or operation of anything done in accordance with the provision before that expiry. For example, a contract executed in accordance with any modified requirements under section 14 would remain validly executed even after the expiry of that section.

The provisions in Schedule 3 will continue beyond the expiry of the Act. For example, the provision exempting the JobKeeper payment from payroll tax needs to continue for as long as employers continue to receive that benefit.

Mr President, I will now deal with each of the changes proposed by the Bill.

Clauses 7 to 10 of the Bill contains provisions relating to commercial leases, residential tenancies, residential parks, rooming house agreements and supported residential facilities. These provisions seek to support the National Cabinet's agreement that, amongst other things, a short term, temporary moratorium on eviction for non-payment of rent be applied across tenancies impacted by severe rental distress due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clause 7 of the Bill modifies the law of leases to provide protections and relief for commercial tenants impacted by the pandemic. The provisions apply to all commercial leases in South Australia, but exclude leases under the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989 and the Crown Land Management Act2009 as those Acts already provide broad discretion for government landlords to provide protection and relief to tenants as those landlords consider appropriate.

Landlords will be prohibited from taking certain actions against tenants who experience financial hardship, including: evictions for non-payment of rent or out-goings; requiring a tenant to pay land tax; terminating a lease or imposing other penalties on tenants who stop trading or reduce hours; and charging interest on unpaid rent. In addition, there will be a freeze on rent increase during the prescribed period.

There will also be a role for the Small Business Commissioner to mediate disputes and make determinations on the question of whether a tenant is suffering financial hardship and related issues with an appeal to the Magistrates Court.

Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill set out the provisions applying to residential tenancies and residential parks (with select provisions also applying to a rooming house agreement). Along with the moratorium on eviction solely on the grounds unpaid rent, the proposed amendments also include:

a prohibition on rent increases;

provision for the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) to consider COVID-19 pandemic related factors in cases of undue hardship to tenants or landlords and to make an order that it considers appropriate, including in relation to costs associated with the termination of an agreement;

a general protection for tenants who breach their agreement as a result of complying with a direction under law relating to the COVID-19 pandemic; and

a requirement that inspections be conducted by audio-visual or electronic means, unless there are exceptional circumstances to conduct the inspection in person.

Clauses 7, 8 and 9 have limited retrospective operation if landlords take, or have taken, certain actions against tenants at any time from 30 March 2020 to the date of assent of the Bill. This is in line with the National Cabinet announcement being made on 29 March 2020.

The operation of the Supported Residential Facilities Act 1992 is modified by clause 10 of the Bill. Primarily, the amendments seek to ensure residents of these facilities will not face homelessness unnecessarily during the COVID-19 pandemic, providing this vulnerable group security during a challenging time.

The amendments also protect proprietors of supported residential facilities from being taken to have committed an offence under the Act, or to have breached a term of a licence or resident contract or other agreement, if they are reasonably complying with the proposed amendments to the Act or any direction or law applying to or regulating supported residential facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clause 11 of the Bill enables the Treasurer to make instructions under section 41 of the Public Finance And Audit Act 1987 to suspend or modify the operation of any provisions or regulations of that Act and any requirements under another Act or law relating to financial reporting or auditing. Such instructions are only permissible where the Treasurer is satisfied that the suspension or modification is necessary as a result of circumstances brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic or to facilitate economic recovery during or following the pandemic. Further safeguards include:

requiring the Treasurer to consult with the Auditor-General in relation to any instruction that modifies or suspends any provision of Part 3 of the Public Finance and Audit Act, with the Auditor-General to certify that the suspension or modification is necessary.

authorising the Auditor-General to prepare a report on any instructions issued by the Treasurer pursuant to this section and to deliver that report to the President of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the House of Assembly.

authorising the Auditor-General, under clause 12, to conduct a review in place of an audit.

Clause 13 of the Bill creates a broad general power for the Governor, by regulation, to extend time limits and terms of appointment etc. However, with respect to appointments, appointments can only be extended by a maximum of 6 months and the cessation of an appointment can only be postponed for 6 months. This broad power will assist in a number of different circumstances. For example, many appointments to various offices are currently in place for periods which may expire during the COVID-19 pandemic. For some of these appointments, there will not be the capacity for arrangements to be made for new appointments to take place. The ability for periods of appointments to be extended by up to 6 months is paramount to ensuring that the State's courts, tribunals, boards and regulatory bodies can continue to operate. This provision also applies to extending periods of time in which anything needs to be done, with no 6 month limit.

There are many instances, including in legislation, where there is a requirement for face to face witnessing of documents, whether by a member of the public or a person fitting statutory criteria to do so. Examples include the witnessing of advance care directives and powers of attorney. The current directions under the Emergency Management Act 2004 impose legal social distancing restrictions which may increasingly impact the ability of people to execute documents in a legally effective way. In addition to the legal restrictions, there may be unwillingness of persons qualified to witness documents where there are statutory requirements for them to do so, due to anxiety about associated health risks. Clause 14 of the Bill contains a regulation-making power to address these limitations including by giving scope to address particular policy and operational considerations, such as the need to assess a person's capacity and to ensure integrity of the process.

Clause 15 of the Bill addresses a limitation in existing State legislation, such as the Associations Incorporations Act 1985 and legislation establishing boards of management for statutory authorities, which requires entities to meet. Although in some cases it is clear that the legislation allows for such meetings to be held personally or by other means including electronically, in many instances it is not clear that these measures are available for all these entities. The amendment overcomes this limitation and provides clarity for all these bodies that they can continue to conduct their business and meet their statutory obligations.

Clause 16 of the Bill contains provisions relating to service of notices and documents.

Clause 17 sets out the general regulation making powers for the purposes of the Bill. For example, the regulations may provide for:

the circumstances in which a person will be taken to be suffering financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic for the purposes of a tenancy provision of this Act;

matters to which the Commissioner must have regard in making a determination under section 7;

mitigation of adverse impacts on a party to a lease resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, including by making provision for any measures to regulate the parties to a lease or the provisions of a lease;

a scheme for a community visitor or visitors for the purposes of Schedule 1; and

fines, not exceeding $10,000, for offences against the regulations.

Clause 18 provides that the Governor may make regulations of a savings or transitional nature on the expiry of any provision of this Act under section 6 or on the revocation of any regulation in accordance with section 17(5). This provision is preserved under the sunsetting provision in clause 6.

Clause 19 of the Bill provides immunity from liability.

Schedule 1 of the Bill contains special provisions relating to the detention of certain protected persons.

During the COVID-19 pandemic there is a risk that supported accommodation service providers will need to detain people with a mental incapacity (for example, require them to remain inside the supported accommodation premises) in order to follow Chief Public Health Officer guidelines and to minimise the risk of exposure to COVID-19. However, under current law, such detention might be seen as unlawful. In order to prevent any such detention being unlawful and to manage other risks, it is proposed that temporary detention orders be approved by an appointed Authorisation Officer or by the Guardian of the person if one is appointed, for a period of 28 days. After 28 days, a report must be made to SACAT along with an application for further detention if that is required. A person subject to such an order would have access to existing internal review mechanisms at SACAT.

To ensure additional external oversight, the amendments also provide for the Community Visitor Scheme to be expanded so that visitors have the ability to make contact with any residents and service providers and provide reports to the Principal Community Visitor.

Schedule 2 of the Bill temporarily modifies the operation of the following State laws:

Part 1 of Schedule 2 amends the Emergency Management Act 2004 to clarify the powers of the State Co-ordinator under section 25 on the declaration of an identified major incident, a major emergency or a disaster under Division 3.

Under the current section 25(3), if the State Coordinator is of the opinion that the scope of an emergency is of such a magnitude that demand for medical goods or services cannot be met without contravening laws, the State Coordinator may, despite those laws, authorise authorised officers or authorised officers of a particular class, to provide goods or services or a particular class of goods and services on such conditions as he thinks appropriate.

The Bill deletes section 25(3) of the Emergency Management Act 2004 and instead inserts a number of provisions in its place.

New subsection 25(3) provides that the State Co-ordinator or his or her delegate may give or impose a direction or requirement under this section that is to apply generally throughout the State (which also clarifies that an authorised officer cannot).

New subsection 25(4) provides that any such State wide direction must be published within 24 hours after it is given (as per the current practice of these directions being published on the SA Legislation website).

New subsection 25(5) clarifies the State Co-ordinator's powers and provides that he or she, or an authorised officer, may exercise or discharge a power or function under this section even if that would contravene another law of the State. It allows the State Co-ordinator or an authorised officer to use such force as necessary in the exercise or discharge of a power or function under this section and clarifies what directions or requirements that are given or imposed by the State Co-ordinator or an authorised officer may do.

Mr President, subsection 25(6) allows the State Co-ordinator or an authorised person to exempt a class of persons or place from a direction subject to any conditions. Under s 25(7) the State Co-ordinator must consider the advice of the Chief Public Health Officer before exercising or discharging a power or function that would authorise the provision or direct the provision of health goods or services or a particular class of such goods or services.

New section 26B makes it clear that if the State Co-ordinator requires the disclosure of information by a direction or requirement under section 25, then that person is under no obligation to maintain secrecy or other restriction on the disclosure of the information, except an obligation or restriction designed to keep the identity of an informant secret.

Under section 28(1) of the Emergency Management Act 2004 it is an offence to refuse or fail to comply with a requirement or direction of the State Co-ordinator or authorised officer without reasonable excuse. This section is amended so that the offence is now expiable with a fine of $1,000 for a natural person or $5,000 for a body corporate.

Mr President, the amendments proposed by this Bill are supported by the State Co-ordinator. He welcomes clarification of his powers to make it clear that he can make general directions in circumstances of emergency and that these powers are not to be hampered by the operation of general law. Further, in the event that he needs to order the construction of public works urgently to address the COVID-19 pandemic, he can do so without delay.

The operation of section 71A of the Environment Protection Act 1993 is modified by Part 2 of Schedule 2 to add to the ways that collection depots may pay refund amounts to customers to include electronic funds transfer. This will provide a further payment option for collection depots and customers that is consistent with the Australian Government Department of Health statement (updated 31 March 2020) re Social distancing for coronavirus (COVID-19) stating that people use tap and go instead of cash.

A key part of the Government's COVID-19 pandemic response is to fast track key infrastructure projects in order to assist with economic stimulus. Current requirements under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 in relation to the Public Works Committee, whilst appropriate in normal circumstances, could potentially operate as a barrier to key construction work being undertaken quickly.

The operation of the Parliamentary Committees Act is modified by a new section 16AA which allows certain steps in the process to be bypassed in appropriate and limited circumstances.

To provide the government with the flexibility it requires to respond to the needs of the South Australian community in rapidly changing circumstances, it is proposed that for 2019-20 only, Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Bill provides for an increase to the level of the Governor's Appropriation Fund established under section 12 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987, from three percent of the amount set out in the annual Appropriation Act for appropriation in respect to the previous year to ten percent.

Part 5 of Schedule 2 of the Bill amends the South Australian Public Health Act 2011 to provide the Chief Public Health Officer with the ability to enforce detention orders made under section 77 of the Act.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this means that where a person who has been diagnosed with COVID-19 refuses to stay in hospital when they have been directed to do so by health and medical practitioners, the Chief Public Health Officer or their delegate will have the power to use reasonable force where necessary to ensure that a person does not go out into the community and infect others. For example, clinical staff may need to escort a person from the Emergency Department to a secure COVID-19 ward.

While these powers are already implied in the South Australian Public Health Act 2011, this amendment will ensure it is expressly clear that the Chief Public Health Officer, and clinical staff with delegated powers, are able to act in this way, in the interests of averting significant risks to public health. The Minister for Health and Wellbeing is aware of significant anxiety and concern raised by clinical staff on the frontline of the COVID-19 pandemic about persons leaving hospital against their advice. These amendments provide assurance for our clinicians that they can keep people in hospital when they need to.

Schedule 3 of the Bill contains related amendments to certain Acts.

Proposed new section 32A of the Emergency Management Act 2004 provides that no liability attaches to the Crown in respect of any acts or omission in connection with the exercise or discharge of a power or function under this Act and that carrying out of any direction or requirement given or imposed under this Act in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. This provision operates retrospectively so that the Crown has no liability in relation to directions of the State Co-ordinator made prior to these amendments coming into operation.

A similar amendment is inserted into the South Australian Public Health Act 2011 in Part 3 of Schedule 3 of the Bill.

Finally, the Payroll Tax Act 2009 is amended to address payroll tax implications arising from the JobKeeper payment announced by the Prime Minister on 30 March 2020.

New section 17A will ensure that wages paid or payable by an employer to an employee that are subsidised by the JobKeeper Payment are exempt. The exemption does not apply to any part of wages paid or payable to an employee that are not subsidised by the JobKeeper payment. The amendments reflect the agreement reached by the Board of Treasurers that wages paid or payable equivalent to a JobKeeper Payment received by an employer should not incur payroll tax. This clause will expire on the day on which the JobKeeper Payment ceases.

Mr President, these are extraordinary times, unprecedented times. It is a time for governments to act, and act decisively. No government has ever before had to confront challenges like the ones we now face.

Our Government is determined to do whatever is necessary, relying on the advice of experts, to ensure that our people—and our State—get to the other side of this COVID-19 crisis as well as we can.

The changes proposed in this unprecedented Bill underscore the magnitude of the challenges ahead, but together, we will get through them.

I thank all South Australians for their patience so far, and for their patience in coming months.

Mr President, I commend the Bill to Members and I table a copy of the Explanation of Clauses.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

This clause is formal.

2—Commencement

The provisions relating to commercial and residential tenancies are to be made retrospective to 30 March 2020.

3—Interpretation

This clause defines 'instrument' and 'relevant declaration' for the purposes of the measure.

4—Application of Act

This clause provides for extra territorial operation of the measure (to the extent possible).

5—Interaction with other Acts

Except as is provided in the measure, it is in addition to and does not limit, or derogate from, the provisions of other Acts and laws.

6—Expiry of Act

This is a sunsetting provision for the measure.

Part 2—General modifications

7—Provisions applying to commercial leases

The provisions of this clause operate to modify the operation of the Retail and Commercial Leases Act 1995, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1936 and the Real Property Act 1886, including the operation of retail shop leases under those Acts. It also operates to modify the operation of other commercial leases that don't fall within the ambit of those Acts. These modifications will be taken to have commenced on 30 March 2020 and will operate going forward during the 'prescribed period'. This is defined to be the period starting from commencement of this clause and ending on the expiry of the provision under clause 6 of the measure.

The clause provides that a lessor cannot take certain prescribed action against a lessee that is suffering financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic on the grounds of a breach of a lease due to failing to pay rent or outgoings, not opening for business during hours required or other prescribed acts or omissions. Prescribed action is defined broadly to include eviction, exercising rights of re-entry, possession, forfeiture, termination, distraint of goods, seeking damages, payment of interest on arrears of rent, performance of obligations pursuant to a guarantee or recovery of a security bond.

The clause makes provision for a party to apply to the Small Business Commissioner to mediate a dispute between the parties as to whether or not a lessee is suffering financial hardship, or to otherwise apply for a determination of the Commissioner of that fact. A right of appeal lies to the Magistrates Court against a determination of the Commissioner. The clause also provides for the Small Business Commissioner to mediate disputes between the parties of a commercial lease in relation to other issues that have arisen in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic arising from the operation of this clause, the terms a commercial lease, or the occupation of premises or operation of business conducted at premises that are the subject of a commercial lease. In performing these functions and exercising these powers, the Small Business Commissioner may exercise the same functions or powers that the Commissioner has under Part 7 of the Fair Trading Act 1987.

The clause also clarifies that a lessee acting in accordance with the laws of the State in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic will not be taken to be in breach of their lease or constitute grounds for termination of the lease. The clause also provides that unless the parties otherwise agree, rent payable under the lease (other than turnover rent) may not be increased if a lessee is suffering financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nor can a lessee suffering financial hardship be required to pay, or reimburse the lessor for land tax during the prescribed period. Provision is also made by this clause in relation to the retrospective operation of these provisions so that any action or measures that have been taken between the commencement of the clause and the assent of this measure by the Governor (the relevant period), that would be contrary to the provisions of this clause, that have either not been completed, or only partially completed, or have ongoing or periodic effect, will be stayed or suspended. To the extent that any action or measures may have been completed (in whole or in part) during the relevant period that would otherwise be contrary to the operation of this clause, the parties to a commercial lease may apply to the Magistrates Court for an order to mitigate those effects on the grounds of the financial hardship of the lessee.

8—Provisions applying to residential tenancies

This clause makes a number of modifications to the way residential tenancy agreements operate during the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular aimed at minimising impacts arising out of the pandemic and relating financial hardship. The bulk of the modifications are set out in subclause (1), and have effect to according to their terms. The modifications include preventing landlords from evicting tenants for non-payment of rent, caused by financial hardship suffered as a result of the pandemic. Similarly, landlord cannot increase rent during the pandemic, and the Tribunal must take certain pandemic-related matters into account when making orders under the Residential Tenancies Act 1995. The Tribunal is also conferred with modified powers in relation to the kinds of orders it can make in certain applications. The Tribunal is also conferred with a special power to make orders that are necessary because of the retrospective commencement of this clause. The clause provides that any other provisions under that Act are modified as necessary to give effect to the modifications made by this clause. Acts and omissions necessary under a direction or law relating to the pandemic that might otherwise amount to a breach of an agreement is deemed not to.

9—Provisions applying to residential parks

This clause operates to apply the modifications made under section 8 to the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 to agreements under the Residential Parks Act 2007 (namely residential park tenancy agreements, residential park site agreements or residential park agreements), ensuring consistency for proprietors and tenants under that Act with the benefits conferred on tenants with a residential tenancy agreement.

10—Provisions applying to supported residential facilities

Similar to clauses 8 and 9, this clause modifies the operation of the Supported Residential Facilities Act 1992 to confer similar benefits on residents and proprietors under that Act, albeit slightly different due to the slightly different mechanisms under that Act. But essentially, proprietors cannot terminate resident contracts for failure to pay fees and charges where the resident is suffering financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nor can they raise fees and charges during the period. Similar to the other clauses, the Tribunal's powers are modified to allow it to make appropriate orders in the circumstances of the pandemic. The clause also limits visits by certain allied health and other persons to those that comply with any relevant COVID-19 directions or laws.

11—Treasurer's instructions relating to financial and audit requirements

This clause allows the Treasurer to issue instructions to suspend or modify statutory requirements relating to financial reporting or auditing if satisfied that the suspension or modification is necessary as a result of circumstances brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic (or as a result of any measures taken to address the COVID-19 pandemic) or to provide economic stimulus during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Instructions may not modify or suspend any provision of Part 3 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 unless the Auditor-General has certified that the Auditor-General is also satisfied as to the necessity of the measure and instructions may not diminish the powers or protections of the Auditor-General under any Act or law. The clause also contains reporting powers for the Auditor-General.

12—Audits by Auditor-General

This clause allows the Auditor-General to determine to conduct a review, in such manner as the Auditor-General thinks fit, instead of any audit.

13—Extension of time limits, terms of appointment etc

The Governor may, by regulation, postpone time limits or extend periods of time that would otherwise apply under an Act or law.

14—Requirements relating to documents

The Governor may, by regulation, suspend or modify any requirements under an Act or law, or an instrument, relating to the preparation, signing, witnessing, attestation, certification, stamping or other treatment of any documents.

15—Meetings in person etc may occur by audiovisual or other means

Despite a provision of any Act or law, a requirement that a meeting occur or that some other transaction take place that requires 2 or more persons to be physically present will be taken to be satisfied if the persons meet, or the transaction takes place, remotely using specified electronic means or a means prescribed by the regulations (which may also exclude certain meetings or transactions from the measure if need be).

16—Service

This is a service provision for the purposes of the measure.

17—Regulations

This is a general regulation making power for the purposes of the measure.

18—Transitional regulations on expiry of measure

This clause is preserved under the sunsetting provision in clause 6 and allows for regulations of a savings or transitional nature to be made when the other provisions expire.

19—Immunity

This clause provides immunity from liability.

20—Further provisions in Schedules

This is a technical provision relating to the material in the Schedules.

Schedule 1—Special provisions relating to detention of certain protected persons during COVID-19 pandemic

This Schedule contains a scheme for the limited detention of certain mentally incapacitated persons living in supported care (protected persons) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Guidelines made by the Minister will set out the relevant matters (and are binding on people acting under the Schedule),where mentally incapacitated persons are unable to properly comprehend or comply with a pandemic related direction, for example due to dementia, then the person in charge of the facility in which the person usually resides will be able to detain them within that facility, using no more force than is reasonably necessary.

The Schedule has a number of oversight measures. First, it establishes the office of the Authorising Officer, who will review detentions under the Schedule, will be able to direct other persons and will, if the protected person does not have a guardian, be able to order their detention. The SACAT also has review functions, including reviewing the actions of the Authorising Officer.

Detention under the Schedule is able to be conditional, including conditions allowing a protected person to leave their residence to seek, for example, medical treatment.

There is also a capacity for authorised officers—police officers and others appointed under the measure—to detain protected persons who are unlawfully at large, and return them to their place of residence.

The Tribunal may give advice, directions or other assistance to those who are uncertain about their powers or responsibilities under the Schedule.

The Schedule creates an offence to remove a protected person from a place at which they are being detained.

Finally, all detentions under the Schedule cease on the expiry of the Schedule.

Schedule 2—Temporary modification of particular State laws

This Schedule contains specific modifications to the Emergency Management Act 2004, the Environment Protection Act 1993, the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 and the South Australian Public Health Act 2011.

Schedule 3—Related amendments

This Schedule contains related amendments to the Emergency Management Act 2004, the Payroll Tax Act 2009 and the South Australian Public Health Act 2011.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (11:08): The opposition has supported all of the COVID-19 related legislation that this government has brought forward, and it will support the passage of this bill as quickly as possible, with several small but important amendments. The opposition's steadfast support for the legislation required to effectively deal with the COVID-19 pandemic began with amendments to the South Australian Public Health Act and continued with unprecedented support for an unprecedentedly large amount in the Supply Bill and amendments to local government legislation and coroners legislation.

The opposition's support continues today with the support of this bill. The opposition understands the urgency and necessity of passing this bill as quickly as possible. We will not be holding up the passage of this bill in any way. We understand the government desires the bill to pass through the Legislative Council today and we will facilitate that. We have, as I said, several small but important amendments.

We will not be unduly asking questions; however, with such an extraordinary bill giving such extraordinary powers, it means that there needs to be some scrutiny over the necessity and the potential use of those powers, and we will seek to explore this during the committee stage. We hope this bill will be passed as quickly as possible today, but the opposition is prepared to sit as long as necessary tonight to make sure it does so.

I note that a number of amendments have been filed by the opposition in relation to this bill, and I understand there may also be some amendments filed by crossbenchers. These are, again, small but important amendments, and I am sure the House of Assembly will not mind waiting, even if they have to suspend for a little while today, if we sit longer than they do.

We in this chamber have often done so when the House of Assembly is dealing with things, as we wait for legislation to come back to us. I do not think that is a reason not to pass amendments. Quite frankly, the House of Assembly can wait for us to deal with the important work of scrutinising and reviewing legislation that this council is entrusted to do.

This bill includes a number of sensible and practical measures that will make dealing with the crisis that we are facing easier and will provide some relief when necessary as well. There are various things that this bill does. Clauses 8, 9 and 10 refer to provisions relating to leases: commercial leases, residential tenancies, residential parks and supported residential facilities.

Broadly, these changes mean that if a lessee is facing financial hardship due to COVID-19 then eviction proceedings cannot be taken. This gives security and assurance to those who are renting and because of the situation they find themselves in, people who are now out of a job or on reduced hours or whose financial circumstances are difficult through no fault of their own, get protection and will not be forced into homelessness. These are important measures that I know all states and the federal government have been working on collaboratively. They will work to ensure that people will not unnecessarily lose the roof over their head—a basic tenet of survival.

We will have some questions as to what consideration has been given to landlords who may find themselves out of pocket or facing financial hardship as a result of their tenants facing financial hardship, and if there has been any consideration of a fund or any sort of mechanism for compensation for them. I flag for the Treasurer that when we get into the committee stage there will be a couple of questions around what has been considered, if there has been anything, in terms of landlords and their financial interests.

There are some clauses that change how the Auditor-General conducts audits and the necessity to conduct audits, and an ability for Treasurer's Instructions relating to financial and audit requirements. We understand that, in the circumstances and with the challenges we are facing, things will not necessarily be done as they are in normal times. There will be government departments whose work will have to be almost solely focused on a response to this health crisis and, at this time, what they might do in terms of reporting and auditing may not be as fulsome as possible in the ordinary course. We recognise the necessity of providing some sort of mechanism for that to change for the time being.

We have a couple of small amendments in relation to these to change the word 'may' to 'must' in terms of the reporting. If an audit is not required, instead of the Auditor-General 'may' report about not doing a full audit, that becomes 'must' do a full audit. We think these are not at all burdensome or onerous requirements but will give some level of transparency when the new provisions under these acts are being used.

There is a provision under clause 13 for an extension of time limits and terms of appointments so that if any appointments expire during the declared emergency, the government can extend those appointments. I note in the House of Assembly there was an amendment that was successful that had the appointments limited to only an extra six months. We think that is a sensible amendment that was made in the House of Assembly so that you are not having appointments for many years or reappointments that may, in effect, get around what would be the ordinary scrutiny even of this parliament.

There are certain officeholders whose appointment needs to be formalised by parliamentary committee. We had some concerns about this usurping the parliamentary process and, in particular, parliamentary committees, but with the inclusion of the limit to six months, we are satisfied that that provides the appropriate checks and balances in that respect.

There are clauses that relate to requirements relating to documents. We know that there had been concerns over things like stat decs that need to be signed by JPs. Justices of the peace are in very short supply in these times. Particularly members of the House of Assembly, whose electorate offices often include staff who perform JP services, are reporting massive demands and increases in the requirement for those services as some justices of the peace now self-isolate or are not doing what they usually do, and often police officers who perform that role on occasions are necessarily diverted elsewhere. So regarding requirements in relation to documents—and justice of the peace is just one example—when we get to the committee stage, we will be keen to get other examples from the Treasurer of where the government may see that will have a need.

Clause 15, we think, is a sensible reform in that meetings that are required to be in person during the declared emergency may be by audiovisual means; similarly with clause 16 in relation to the service of documents. We get to the schedules: schedule 1 relates to the detention of certain protected persons under things like the Guardianship and Administration Act or the Mental Health Act, and we will have a couple of questions about who the authorising officer is and why it is the minister and not the State Coordinator who can direct the authorising officer under schedule 1. Schedule 2 temporarily modifies a number of state laws, and schedule 3 has related amendments.

As I flagged, we have a number of very small but we think quite reasonable amendments that in no way limit unnecessarily the extraordinary powers and, in most cases, the necessary powers that come with this act but require, without being unreasonable, some small bits of extra transparency in how this act will be administered, particularly the decisions that are made to dispense with requirements that would usually need to be there.

As I said at the start, as an opposition we have endeavoured in everything that we have done to be constructive in terms of our approach to what we do in the current circumstances. We have put forward a number of ideas. Some the government has looked at, and some the government has taken up after we have suggested them. We see our role as an opposition in this time to be as constructive as possible to put forward ideas and to be doing what we can for South Australia and for South Australians in this time. As I said at the start, we have supported the four pieces of legislation that have touched on this so far and, in some cases, have supported legislation going through the parliament in one day.

We are disappointed in relation to this particular bill that the constructiveness that we have sought as an opposition has not been fully demonstrated by the government. On Sunday evening, the opposition were given a copy of the bill that we are now debating. On Monday, very late afternoon, the opposition received a briefing from officers via audiovisual means, which was very helpful, and we thank the officers who provided that briefing to the opposition. We were given assurances. We had a number of questions that we would have answers to those questions later that night, so the opposition at their usual caucus meeting, again by audio means, on Tuesday could consider the bill with the answers to those questions.

Despite assurances that we would get them on Monday night, we did not. We did not get any answers on Tuesday, despite repeated requests to answers to legitimate questions that we had raised during the course of yesterday. We did not receive those. It is evident from answers that were given by the Attorney-General in the House of Assembly that the Attorney had the full answers to those questions that we raised and could have forwarded them to us so we could better understand some of the elements of the bill.

The answers to the questions that the Labor opposition asked on Monday afternoon were in fact emailed to the opposition at 9.41pm last night, which is coincidental that the House of Assembly rose at 9.36pm. If you were a little less generous, you might think that it was quite deliberately timed so as not to give the opposition or any of the crossbench in the House of Assembly the benefit of answers to legitimate questions that are being raised. To receive answers five minutes after the house rose does not tend to indicate the level of bipartisanship that the opposition is affording the government at these times.

Be that as it may, and that may just be the modus operandi of the Attorney-General and not reflective of the government's attitude, I do wish to place on the record that we are disappointed in how that was sought to be handled, that answers to legitimate questions were provided five minutes after parliament rose when some of those answers could have formed the basis of useful discussion in the House of Assembly.

We hope that the actions of the Attorney-General do not unnecessarily delay the passage of this bill, but we do note that those answers could have been provided much earlier and that this is not a time for playing politics. That having being said, we will do whatever it takes to make sure this piece of legislation passes this chamber today and can go back to the House of Assembly, where they can consider any possible changes that we have made up here. I am sure they will stick around to make sure they can receive those, as we have done many times for the House of Assembly.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (11:23): At the outset can I echo some of the opening remarks of the Hon. Kyam Maher in terms of recognising the urgency and importance of this legislation in the current climate, the exceptional circumstance we find ourselves in and the reflection of that in this bill and, to that end, the significant impacts that this bill will obviously have—the rolling nature of this debate, the time frames within which we are receiving information, and being asked, obviously, to make decisions that will have far-reaching ramifications.

Of course, there is our reliance at the same time on decisions being made at the national level. I do not think there is anyone in this place who does not want to see a genuine effort on the part of the entire parliament to get this package through in a timely manner. We have certainly indicated that we will do all we can to facilitate that process, as I think everyone else in here has, but it is our expectation also that we will have the opportunity to consider some of the concerns that have been raised in relation to some of the more far-reaching provisions in the bill. I think that will extend to ensuring that there is adequate time to consider the amendments that are being proposed and that everyone's staff has been working tirelessly behind the scenes to make sure this happens in the time frame available to us.

It is also our expectation that given all of those matters, if need be and in order to get through all that material, we will sit as long as possible and expect that the other chamber will sit as long as possible in the hours available to us to get this done, and get it done today or tomorrow, whatever the case may be, as soon as we can work through the detail.

I think it is important to note that the member has made some very valid points in relation to that. I think we have all entered these discussions with the Attorney's office and the government in good faith, and it is our expectation that that will be reciprocated. We have certainly been receiving information late in the piece, which is making this extraordinarily difficult for all of us, but everyone is doing their best. I make those comments at the outset, because I think it is important that we place on the record our willingness to work with the government and the importance of the government's openness to work with the opposition and the crossbench to ensure that what we pass today has the seal of approval, if you like, of all of us in here.

The bill, as we know, attempts to ensure the safe and efficient functioning of government throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and address the economic impacts on the state. It also addresses general community safety by attempting to adopt measures that support the community restrictions that are in place in line with the latest health advice. As I have said, it is a huge ask for parliament to be expected to pass such a piece of legislation in the time frame available to us, but extraordinary times require extraordinary measures, and these are indeed extraordinary times.

Like others in this chamber, SA-Best acutely understands and acknowledges the need to move quickly in response to the current COVID-19 pandemic gripping the world and the severe impact it is having, not only on global, national and state economies but also, of course, on the lives of tens of thousands of South Australians. This was, as I mentioned yesterday, brutally and tragically reinforced when SA Health announced the sad passing of the first South Australian from this insidious virus. Of course, SA Health has warned the community and continues to warn the community, and rightly so, of the likelihood of more deaths.

It is in this tragic and rapidly moving environment that we, like others in this place, are supporting this bill, subject of course to the discussions that are going to take place, in-principle support and any potential move for further amendments. We all have the same aim in mind and that is to further protect our community from the spread of COVID-19 and to ensure that everybody is protected in their everyday lives during that time. Any questions we ask and any criticisms that may arise as a result of the bill are simply done on the basis of trying to improve the bill in the time available to us and make the community safer for all of us.

The bill gives the government, and specifically the police commissioner in his role as State Coordinator, extraordinary powers, powers that some would argue we have probably never seen before. They are time limited and relate specifically to the current pandemic facing the state, but again they strike at the heart in which the government intends to operate, and it is reasonable to assume that the community will also be impacted by these new measures.

SA-Best is especially conscious of the need to grant relief and certainty to tenants and landlords in these most uncertain times, and we congratulate the government and specifically the Attorney and her department for attempting to do whatever they can in these trying times to ensure that tenants and landlords alone are not left worse off as a result of these extraordinary circumstances in which they find themselves. I do not think there is any doubt that they have worked tirelessly to make sure that those tenants and landlords alike are protected in this very trying environment.

For any government, federal or state, to attempt to step into the middle of a contractual arrangement between a landlord and a tenant to try to ensure that neither is left significantly worse off as a result of how the coronavirus impacts either the landlord, the tenant, or both, is noteworthy, and in the first instance the parliament is relying on the federal government to lead the national agenda. It must be true to its word in guaranteeing commitments made by the banking sector to show leniency and sympathy to both tenants and landlords who can show financial hardship as a result of COVID-19, and to ensure that that is honoured in an expedited manner.

Following a national cabinet meeting on 3 April, Prime Minister Scott Morrison acknowledged this very fact when referring to the proposed industry code of practice for commercial tenancies, and that is an issue we discussed at the briefing held on Monday. During that announcement he said:

The banks will need to come to the party as well. The banks are not parties to those arrangements, and so that makes it legally a little more difficult. But banks are already moving to providing all sorts of new facilities and arrangements to their customers, and we would expect banks to be supportive of agreements reached by landlords and tenants who would be working under this mandatory code.

To a large extent we are proceeding—and I think this was reaffirmed in the meeting on Monday—in South Australia in good faith on the assumption that the banks will do the right thing and that landlords, as well as tenants, will not be left out in the cold.

Things appear to be moving in the right direction in this regard. Yesterday, the national cabinet released a mandatory code of conduct outlining a set of good faith leasing principles which, on the face of it (again, on the face of it, because we are considering these things as we move through this debate), appear to be fair and equitable between both commercial tenants and landlords.

That code purports to apply to all SME tenancies that are small and medium enterprise tenants with an annual turnover of up to $50 million that are eligible for the commonwealth government's JobKeeper subsidy program. It is aimed at contemplating state legislation, with the objective being to proportionately share the financial risk and cash flow impact during the COVID-19 period between landlord and tenant. The applicable period also includes a reasonable recovery period in its aftermath.

Whilst recognising that the temporary arrangement should be applied on a case-by-case basis, the code gives more guidance to tenants and landlords than does the current bill because of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Specifically, it states that landlords must offer tenants proportionate reductions in rent payable in the form of waivers and deferrals of up to 100 per cent of the amount ordinarily payable on a case-by-case basis, based on the reduction in the tenant's trade during the COVID-19 pandemic period and a subsequent reasonable recovery period.

Rental waivers must constitute no less than 50 per cent of the total reduction in rent payable under principle 3 of the COVID-19 pandemic period, and should constitute a greater proportion of the total reduction in rent payable in cases where failure to do so would compromise the tenant's capacity to fulfil their ongoing obligations under the lease agreement. Regard must also be had to the landlord's financial ability to provide such additional waivers, and tenants may waive the requirement for a 50 per cent minimum waiver by agreement.

Payments/deferrals must be amortised over the balance of the lease term and for a period of no less than 24 months, whichever is the greater, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The leasing principles also provide further guidance in relation to reductions in statutory charges such as land tax, council rates and insurance being proportionally passed on to the tenant. The benefit of the loan referrals should also be between landlord and tenant.

Once again, the legislation is proceeding on the assumption that the banks are indeed going to do the right thing here, and I am not suggesting by any stretch that the banks have not gone to the nth degree to do the right thing. In commending the new code, the Australian Banking Association CEO Anna Bligh said yesterday:

Australian banks are committed to supporting their customers through the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated economic pressures it has brought with it. This code provides a welcome tool to assist them in this process.

South Australia is ultimately responsible for legislating commercial tenancy arrangements; residential tenancy arrangements have not been included in the code of conduct. There are a number of concerns that have been raised, particularly during the briefing stage on this bill, and we will expand on those particular provisions during the committee stage.

I note that the code does provide a definition of financial hardship, but that is not something we have seen before us in the bill. It is certainly something that was raised during the briefings, and it is certainly something we will be seeking further guidance on from the government in terms of whether it is the intention to use the definition implemented in the code or otherwise, and whether there would be any need to have more clarity around the definition of financial hardship during the debate on this bill rather than during the implementation of the regulations.

I will not speak to the financial hardship or stress provisions now—I will do that when we get into the committee stage—but it is important to place those things on the record, because when we were asking these questions on Monday, specifically in relation to some of the issues I have canvassed, the response we were given was, 'We are anticipating that will be included in the code.' Of course, we had not seen the code; the code had not been released. Now we have the code and we have the bill, so we can work with those side-by-side and have some further clarity.

However, it highlights not only the urgent manner in which this bill has been passed but the expectation on all of us to pass it, knowing that a lot of these things we are relying on have not even been finalised yet or are still in the development stage as we are being asked to agree to them.

There are number of other measures that I have not touched on—I am sure the Hon. Mark Parnell will touch on a few of them—specifically in relation to accountability and transparency, and I will have more to say on those during the committee stage debate. I can say there was one amendment we were intending to introduce in relation to the sunset clause and the maximum period within which that would have to expire, and I was pleased to see a compromise was reached in the lower house yesterday in relation to that specific issue.

I hope that same level of cooperation exists in this place today as we work our way through this bill, this moving feast if you like. With those words, I indicate that any further issues we have will be raised during the committee stage.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (11:38): I note that due to the rushed nature of having received this bill, and having had the government's second reading explanation simply tabled rather than read out, that even the running sheets are little awry this morning.

I rise to indicate cautious support for this bill and to put my concerns on the record. I certainly welcome the residential tenancies aspects; indeed, I was heartened to hear that certainty and surety given by our Prime Minister with regard to those who will be or who are already facing extreme hardship due to COVID-19. The positive impact ensures that those facing that uncertainty, that instability, that poverty—that further poverty—have a safe place to live, to isolate, to do their part to flatten the curve, and it is most welcome.

The protections for commercial tenants against being evicted for non-payment of rent due to the COVID crisis that we are currently in the midst of are essential measures to help flatten the curve, to help keep our society together, to help ensure that when we come through this we have the very conditions that local business and the state economy will need. I welcome the announcement of significant amounts of money at a federal level and at a state level to ensure this happens. Indeed this bill provides for even further significant amounts on top of the previous legislation that we have seen the speedy passage of in this place in recent weeks, ensuring that while the usual schedules of budgets for state and federal parliaments have been delayed indeed supply has been guaranteed, clearly, to the end of the year.

On this bill, however, those areas that I would call the sugar-coating of the bitter pill of this bill—the residential tenancies and the commercial leases areas—are those of my colleague, Mark Parnell, so I will not talk too much to those, but I will express some concerns that we are being asked here to write a blank cheque for an extended period of time with very little oversight. We are asked for trust, and you cannot have trust without transparency. That is the situation the community finds itself in, that is the situation the country finds itself in and that is the situation that the council today finds itself in.

I am heartened by the opposition's motion that is on today's Notice Paper—and I know it is slightly unparliamentary to note that. Without that oversight select committee that is proposed and I believe has strong support from this council, I would have much graver reservations about passing this bill today. To put it in context, while some members of this council received the bill on Sunday night, not all members did; they got it later than that. Indeed, the Hon. Kyam Maher was quite correct: we received our answers to questions from our briefing that was held on—which morning?

An honourable member: Monday.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —on Monday morning at 9 o'clock, via this brave new world of in this case Microsoft Teams, which was a reasonably unsatisfactory process. I do thank the Attorney and her staff for providing the briefing, but in fact all of the officers that we required, and certainly those in the public health sphere, were not online so were not able to answer our questions. Not all our questions were answered, and indeed it was quite clear, listening to the debate last night, that the Attorney had answers, but they were not provided to members of parliament prior to the suspension of yesterday's session of parliament in the other place. I got them about three or four minutes after the parliament rose yesterday, and I suspect we all received that same email.

It did not create trust in my mind. It certainly would have been better in the other place to perhaps have allowed a suspension of standing orders to allow members of that chamber to ask more than three questions each, given the circumstances of a mere matter of hours' turnaround on a bill that was sight unseen for most of us—we received the bill on Monday or Sunday at the very earliest and here we are on Wednesday—and which involves extraordinary powers.

It creates absolutely extraordinary powers, where we already have acts. The Emergency Management Act already provides for extraordinary powers for the State Coordinator. We already have a situation where previously a public health emergency was declared; in that case the Chief Medical Officer had those extraordinary powers. We have debated those previous public health and emergency management provisions with the ability to consult and to see what those in the sector most directly affected have to say about this.

But now, after receiving some of the answers at 9.30 last night to questions we asked on Monday morning, having to wait for the bill to arrive this morning in its amended form and then noting the Treasurer did not bother to read out the second reading explanation, we are being asked to launch into extraordinarily deep and profound changes to our democratic structures.

I have a lot of goodwill for this government. I think they have done a fine job in many ways. I commend the Premier and, in particular, I commend the work of the Minister for Human Services. I walked a brief distance to work today, having been in self-isolation for two weeks, through a brave new world. The streets were quite empty, but where I would have usually walked past some five or six homeless people during that short journey, there were none. I know that is because of the work of this government, and I know that that is the goodwill in which we rightly trust them, but without transparency, there is no trust.

It was only yesterday that we finally saw the release of the national modelling. We have asked questions in this place before about why the recommendation was for schools not to close. Different jurisdictions have interpreted the national advice on school closures in different ways. We know full well that COVID-19 has only existed for literally weeks on this planet, so there is no peer reviewed evidence of the correct steps to take at each point. Without releasing modelling and without the provision of advice that the government is relying on but then chiding us for not taking that advice, that trust will not be there.

What I would say to the government today is that if you want to extend the powers of the State Coordinator (aka the police commissioner) to contravene, to break every single law of the land in this state, tell me why we need to break the Aboriginal Heritage Act laws. Tell me why we need to break the South Australian Public Health Act laws. Tell me why we need to break the Return to Work Act laws. Which laws need breaking before we sign that blank cheque for you?

One of the questions I asked during the briefing on Monday, at which the public health officers were not present, was: why are the public health provisions and emergency management amendments, which are so far-ranging, broad and extraordinary, necessary? I am still waiting for an answer. What are we seeking to remedy? What are the identified barriers to good public health? Why does the current police commissioner require these powers, in what ways, and how will they be applied?

Aboriginal communities have already raised alarm bells because they are no strangers to communities that have been shut down, restricted and isolated. They want surety that, come the end of this, those powers will not have been abused or used against them more than they have been used against other members of our community, as do those who are weak, vulnerable and homeless. As I said, I commend this government and I have a lot of respect for what they have done so far, but you cannot come to this parliament with this process and expect that trust without the transparency that would be demanded in the debate on this bill.

On that, I would recommend that we finally get those answers at clause 1. If we move through the clauses and find, later in the debate, answers that contradict what we have been led to believe prior to those clauses, then we will certainly end up here for a spectacularly long time. I do not propose to sit day and night on this bill; I propose that we get straight to the truth and to the transparency that we need to ensure that we are doing the best for those we serve in this place.

I take great heart that there is a select committee. I note, though, that other parliaments around Australia went straight in with oversight committees and that has not been proposed by this government. What is proposed under this bill is that the State Coordinator (aka the police commissioner) has his term extended without transparency, without due process, and is allowed to direct the building of major works without the oversight of the Public Works Committee.

The Public Works Committee, a committee of parliament controlled by the government, simply requires one week or two weeks' notice turnaround to apply some public scrutiny to the expenditure of significant amounts—over $4 million; usually much larger than that—of public moneys through a committee which the government controls, which meets pretty much every two weeks, and probably could meet more if it was required, does not seem to be something that I would have had on my hit list to remove, if I was not afraid of transparency.

I ask the government if it will guarantee that no schools will be redeveloped and shut down using the powers of the bill we have before us. I specifically ask about Springbank College which is still waiting for the $10 million that it was allocated under the Labor government, which is currently under review. It has all of the uncertainties of the COVID-19 environment but, on top of that, it has the uncertainty of an unspecified government review that has no clear reason, other than the potential to close them down, hanging over its head. Those children—who do not even know what they are doing next term—are now asked to indicate to the Department for Education whether or not they want to continue at that school; a school that already has an uncertain future.

That is the sort of lack of trust that builds in the community. It sees ridiculous things like the various conspiracy theories that I am sure every member of parliament is receiving from the community. The lack of modelling being released, the lack of parliamentary oversight in this bill, the lack of reasoning given, the incredibly short turnaround time on those scant answers that we received late last night, does not provide the trust that we will be seeking when we move to clause 1 of the bill.

Just to outline specifically for those who might read Hansard, as the Treasurer is often wont to reflect upon, the several dozen of them I think he believes perhaps. However, many people are actually working from home at the moment and they might, indeed, be listening to this and would have appreciated the government articulating why we need this bill and what this bill contains. It has been left to the opposition and the crossbenches to go through it. New section 25(5) will clarify the State Coordinator's power and provide that he or she or an authorised officer:

…may exercise or discharge a power or function under this section even if to do so would contravene another law of the State;

It also allows the State Coordinator or an authorised officer to use such force as necessary in the discharge of a power or function under this section, and clarifies what directions and requirements are given or imposed by the State Coordinator or unauthorised officer and what they may do.

Why has the government not specified the laws that they seek to suspend in this state to afford such extraordinary powers? There are several hundred laws. There are several hundred acts. You start with the Aboriginal Heritage Act and work your way through: there are privacy laws, there are workplace health and safety laws–what are we talking about here? Where are the laws, the other barriers that the government has identified where we need this bill to enable the State Coordinator to have the power to break? Why is the chief law officer being given the power to break laws without those laws that the chief of police currently, the State Coordinator, will apparently be needing the power to break?

It seems extraordinary to me that you do not come here as a government with at least a list of, say, 10 to 20 laws that are a problem, in terms of ensuring public order, public safety and public security. The announcement by the Prime Minister was that people will not be pushed out into the street, that people will not be homeless, that people who are running small businesses who have nobody coming through those small businesses and who have lost their incomes, will be given that reprieve and that surety, but that is the sweetener here for the very bitter pill that it encapsulates.

The Greens do not oppose all of the provisions of this bill but we do note that just last night, and as has been reflected upon by crossbenchers and by the opposition, there were some crossbencher amendments that were accepted that limited the duration of this bill, should it become an act, that seemed pretty sensible and pretty obvious to have been raised perhaps by members of the cabinet, by members of the Liberal government themselves, before they found their way into a rushed debate in literally several hours yesterday in the other place.

That does not bode well for good lawmaking. What will bode well for good lawmaking is answers to each and every one of our questions in clause 1 so that we can get a very clear picture of exactly what it is that these extraordinary powers will do, exactly how these extraordinary powers will not be abused, will be transparent, and will respect the parliament and our election processes.

One of the obvious laws that the State Coordinator could now have under this piece of legislation that we are currently debating is the ability to suspend our elections. Now they are a long way away but should we have a by-election, will the State Coordinator have the ability to dictate that that not happen?

These are hypotheticals but these are the very hypotheticals that will start to be put out there by people who are scared for their very safety—for their very lives—as we reflect on a second death today due to this COVID-19 pandemic, as we have children who hear the news who are frightened, as we have people who are sleepless, as we have people who are being told to stay in their homes, to not see loved ones and certainly not older members of family if they do not live with them. People are scared, people are looking for safety and surety and a way through this, and the only way that the government can show good faith today is by ensuring that transparency and those answers in clause 1. With those few words, I look forward to the committee stage of the debate.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (11:57): I rise also to support the second reading of this bill. I think it is stating the obvious that this is the most difficult time for South Australia that any of us have been through as members of parliament. I risk people having to disclose their birthdates when I say this but none of us other than the Hon. John Darley, I think, was alive during the Second World War. Even some of our older members were not even young babies, apart from the honourable member I mentioned. This is the most difficult time. All of us been through droughts, floods, economic downturns and a whole range of other challenges that this state has faced; this is, in my view, by far and away the most far-reaching. None of us has been unaffected and, as we know, some people are affected much, much more than others.

Also, it is probably fair to say that this current pandemic has brought out the best in South Australians mostly and the worst occasionally. I think for those of us who believe in civil society and with the belief that people ultimately in our society want to do well, not just for themselves but for each other, I have every confidence that we will get through these challenges.

In relation to this bill, it has been said many times that desperate times call for desperate measures, and I was reflecting to someone the other day when we were contemplating this bill, and I said that in normal circumstances many of us would be out marching in the streets. We would be railing against the suspension of important principles and laws. We would be bemoaning the fact that this was the first step on a march towards a totalitarian regime. We would be up in arms, absolutely.

Bills like this do present an enormous challenge to those of us who value human rights and who value our democratic processes. It is anathema to us to abandon hard-won civil liberties or to suspend the checks and balances that are at the heart of a civilised society governed by the rule of law, because the universality of human rights is fundamental. The right to liberty, free association and all these other rights are not something that we can switch on or switch off lightly. The fear, of course, is that, once switched off, they may never get switched back on again.

I do not hold that fear overly because I think Australians are better than that. I think normal service will be resumed. In fact, I would like to think that we do not just resume normal service, we improve on normal service as a result of the experience that we have all been through, but the post-pandemic world that we want is a debate for another day. I will not go into that now.

Matters such as those in this bill are not simple. Clearly, the current public health emergency requires us to take a different approach. The test for the Greens, when we are looking at the suspensions or relaxations or changes to normal standards of government behaviour, will be to analyse each of the measures against a series of important questions.

I have come up with five. I am sure there are many more, but the lens through which I will be examining this bill is: is the measure really necessary? That is the first question. Secondly, will the exercise of the power be properly and comprehensively reported? In other words, will we know what decisions have been made? Related to that is the third question: will the decision-makers be properly identified and, most importantly, will they be accountable for their actions?

Fourthly, does a person who is subject to some of these executive actions, who believes that the action was arbitrary or even unlawful, have recourse? For example, can they go to the courts for judicial review? Do they have the right to redress if it turns out that powers were inappropriately exercised? The fifth question is: if the power to make law by delegated or subordinate legislation is expanded, as this bill clearly does, will the executive remain accountable to the parliament?

I know there are more questions than that, but they are the going back to first principles questions that I have devised to help go through this bill and work out what is in fact the best outcome for the people of South Australia.

I will start with that final question about accountability to parliament, given that most of the additional powers contained in this bill are regulation making powers. That is at the heart of it. That raises the question in terms of accountability to parliament; that is, whether and how often parliament is going to be able to sit during this public health emergency. Delegated legislation is ultimately prepared by the executive but it is accountable to the parliament, and we do have the capacity to interrogate and, if necessary, disallow those regulations.

The word in the corridor is that the published sitting schedule for parliament will be cancelled and that parliament is likely to sit only monthly from now on, at least during the currency of this pandemic. It is unclear whether the government has in mind sitting for a whole week each month; whether it is proposing to sit only on Tuesdays to deal with government business or maybe Tuesdays and Wednesdays to deal with government and private business.

Regardless, if we are sitting less, then we also need to modify the way that we hold the executive accountable. We will have a debate later this afternoon on one measure that the opposition is putting forward to provide for accountability, but there are some others that I have chosen to incorporate as amendments to this bill. The two things that my amendments seek to do are, first of all, to ensure that any regulations that are made under these emergency powers are tabled in parliament promptly.

The normal rule is that a minister has six sitting days in which to table regulations, so in the worst-case scenario that could mean that we would not see regulations until six months after they had been made if parliament only sat one day per month. If parliament sat two days, then it might be three months before we could see the regulations and be able to interrogate them and to move disallowance.

My amendment proposes, not for all regulations but for regulations made under these emergency powers, that they be tabled on the next sitting day in parliament. That is not a difficult thing to do. They are put in the Government Gazette. It is not a big deal. It is not a great administrative burden to then table them in parliament. That, I think, is part of the quid pro quo if parliament is to agree to sitting less. We need to make sure that the government cannot sit on regulations by not tabling them in parliament and therefore not allowing this chamber, in particular, the power to disallow.

The second amendment relates again to something quite mechanical. It relates to the tabling of reports in parliament. As all members know, one of the standard items at the start of each sitting day is that ministers stand up and table a whole range of scheduled reports, like annual reports from government bodies, from statutory officers or from local councils, but there are also ad hoc reports that are tabled. We get them from the Coroner every so often. There is a whole range of these reports.

When you go through the South Australian statute book, you find that the period for the tabling of those reports varies. Six sitting days is a common time frame. Some of the more urgent ones are listed as three sitting days, but generally it is a fairly long period. For exactly the same reason that I proposed in relation to regulations, I think we need to see these reports much sooner than the statutes would otherwise allow.

My amendment proposes that wherever it says 'X number of sitting days' in a statute, we cross that out and write in 'seven calendar days'. That recognises that the government might want to contemplate a report, an annual report for example, from a statutory officer. They will have a week to contemplate it before it hits the public realm and to have their response ready. It will not be a comprehensive response, but at least they will not be taken by surprise that a report hits the public realm at the same time it hits the minister's desk. We are not looking for that. So seven calendar days.

Of course, parliament in all likelihood will not be sitting, so the amendment proposes that the tabling be done by delivery to the President. If the President for some reason is not around, then the clerks can receive it. We then go through the normal process, where the document is regarded as tabled and put on the parliamentary website. I would be urging the clerks to have a process in place where perhaps an email goes out each day along the lines of, 'Dear members, the following documents were tabled today,' and a link to where they are.

I understand the practice has been for the House of Assembly to be the central repository of these documents. They are mostly tabled in both houses of parliament simultaneously, so that avoids duplication. It means the Legislative Council does not have to maintain its own tabled papers database; that makes sense. The bottom line is that we want to make sure that these documents are presented to the parliament for the purposes of accountability in a timely manner. That is the second amendment that I have moved.

In terms of the detail of the bill, as other members have said, we will go through in committee in more detail each of those provisions, but I will say that I was very pleased to see the eviction moratorium provisions. As some members know, I have a bill not yet circulated but on the Notice Paper that I intended to introduce last Wednesday, which provided for an eviction moratorium for residential tenants.

The government has picked that up in this bill. I certainly will not be proceeding with mine, but I think it is important that, as other members have said, the relationship of landlord and tenant in a commercial or a residential context is absolutely fundamental to the way society works, because it provides housing for a large number of South Australians. I am not sure of the current figure—it might be a quarter, it might be a third of people who rent, as do probably a majority of businesses such as shops.

So we do need to manage that relationship and, as other members have said, we have a bit of a domino effect happening where a tenant might lose their job, and their capacity to pay rent is reduced. If they cannot pay rent the landlord potentially cannot pay the mortgage; the landlord might also have lost their job. We know that these things need to be dealt with holistically. The problem we have is that at the top of the food chain are the banks, which are not subject to state control, whereas the tenancy laws, both commercial and residential, are our responsibility.

I will comment on other parts of the bill when we get to them, but the final thing I would say is just in relation to the comments of my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks: she is right that political goodwill is absolutely essential and trust is essential if we are going to see this through in a civilised way and not resort to traditional adversarial politics. I think political goodwill is quite abundant at the moment, and I think it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that that currency is kept stable and not devalued.

I think there is also a great degree of trust that this parliament is giving to the government. We are trusting them that they will use these powers well and in the best interests of all South Australians. The final thing I would say is that, if the government is keen to keep that political goodwill and that trust, then there are things it can do that are beyond the normal process that would actually make their life easier and would help with the political cohesion in South Australia, and that would include things like relevant ministers providing advanced copies of regulations to the opposition, to the crossbench, inviting other members of parliament into the tent to get briefings on issues of public importance.

The more the government seeks to bring the opposition and crossbench with them, the less likelihood that we will devolve back into an adversarial regime. I think we can do much better. I think this is a great testing time for doing politics better in this state, hopefully some of which might translate into post-COVID-19 politics as well. My plea to the government is: we are trusting you with extraordinary powers, and we need you to take us into your confidence as well. I hope that is the approach that responsible ministers take as they go forward and consider how to use these extraordinary powers we are giving. I support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (12:12): I thank honourable members for their contributions at very, very short notice to this extraordinary piece of legislation. Can I say at the outset—and I am sure I speak on behalf of all members—that I convey my sympathies and the sympathies I am sure of all members to the family and acquaintances of the second South Australian who we understand has passed away as a result of COVID-19 just this morning. We had been in, I guess, the very fortunate position, up until 24 hours ago, where we had had no deaths as a result of COVID-19 in South Australia. It was clearly unsustainable, and inevitably at some stage a South Australian would pass as a result of COVID-19.

We had the first death yesterday, and the Premier conveyed his sympathies to the family and acquaintances of our first death yesterday. The Premier has done so again this morning. I know that I speak on behalf of the government, but I am sure I speak on behalf of other members in this chamber in expressing our sympathies. Sadly, that death will not be the last that South Australian families and friends will have to confront. As the Hon. Mr Parnell indicated, as one of the older and more vulnerable members of this chamber, as indeed am I, he has not lived through anything the like of which we are confronting. I share those particular views, as well.

I have had conversations with the Hon. Mr Darley on a regular basis in recent days but, again—and it is an overused word at the moment—we are living in unprecedented times and unprecedented things are happening. Sadly, it is the reality of what confronts us and, again sadly, that is why we are confronting the legislation we have before us.

I agree with the Hon. Mr Parnell that some of the things the government is asking the parliament to do, and that the parliament is having to consider whether or not it is prepared to support, are the things that many of us, on all sides of politics, would never have contemplated at any stage. Having been here for almost 100 years or whatever it is, I can say that in that period of time we would never have contemplated that we would ever be confronting the sort of circumstances or the wide-ranging nature of the legislation we are confronting.

I have lived through and governed through emergencies of a much, much smaller consequence than the one we are confronting at the moment—the State Bank disaster and various other economic challenges that have confronted the parliament and governments at varying stages—but they pale into insignificance compared with the enormity of what is confronting us as a state, as nation, as a world, and what we are being asked to consider here. I accept the enormity of this.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber for his indication of how he, on behalf of the opposition, intends to approach the debate, and on behalf of the government I welcome his commitment. In his statements he has recognised the enormity of what we are confronting, and I know he would be very much concerned about many aspects of this legislation in any circumstances other than the ones confronting us. So I welcome that.

I indicate to all members who have spoken that I enter this debate—and I will say it now, just to marginally irritate the Leader of the Opposition—as a non-lawyer, but on behalf of the government I will endeavour, to the best of my ability, to answer each and every question members in this chamber put to me in relation to the bill. I am happy to sit and stand here for as long as is required to provide as much information as I can to honourable members.

Inevitably there will be some answers I provide that will not satisfy the individual member, but I hope those individual members who may be dissatisfied with the answer provided will at least recognise that it is not because I am deliberately obfuscating or trying to prevent the release of information I might have access to. It will be a genuine endeavour, on my part and on behalf of the government, to try to answer genuine questions in relation to the legislation we have before us. However, I repeat that it will be impossible for me, indeed for anybody, to satisfy all the questions that can genuinely be asked about the legislation in the sitting today.

As we indicated yesterday, the government's approach—and the Hon. Ms Bonaros acknowledged this—showed a willingness to enter into a discussion and amend the legislation in a way that satisfied a number of members in the House of Assembly on an important issue in relation to the duration of the legislation. It would appear from what the Hon. Ms Bonaros indicated that that satisfied SA-Best, and the Hon. Ms Bonaros in particular.

In relation to the amendments that have been flagged in this chamber, we will approach those amendments over the lunchtime break. I am sure clause 1 is going to take longer than the next 40 minutes. That will give us an opportunity as a government to address the amendments. We will approach the amendments, I can assure you on behalf of the government, with a willingness to accept reasonable compromise and not die in a ditch over the quality of the initial drafting that has been urgently done on behalf of the government. So there will be a high threshold that the government will apply to those who advise us to say, 'Well, why can't we support the amendment?'

In one area I think there may well be a particular issue. We will seek advice from the Auditor-General in relation to his views on one aspect of an amendment, and we will be significantly guided by him. I can indicate in relation to the issues that relate to the Public Finance and Audit Act and the Treasurer, issues that are directly within my purview, as I said to InDaily yesterday, who seem to have this view that this was an extraordinary—I should not say that. The view had been put to them, and they were reflecting those views to me; that is the best way of putting it. The journalist may well be listening and I do not want to injure his reputation in any way.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Exactly. He is certainly at home. The views that he was putting to me, that had been put to him, were that in some way this might be seen as an extraordinary grab of power by the Treasurer to extend his powers above and beyond the pandemic. As I assured that journalist and I assure this chamber, that is the least of my concerns in relation to these provisions in the legislation.

I have not sought any additional power. I am quite—not comfortable—firm in my view that any additional powers that I am given to try to undertake the considerable tasks that I am asked to undertake on behalf of the government and the people of South Australia in financial issues are certainly limited to the requirements of the extraordinary challenge the state confronts.

I am not seeking any additional powers above and beyond the considerable powers in the Public Finance and Audit Act that already exist, beyond what might be needed to get us through the challenges that confront South Australia. I know it is difficult for some in the opposition, perhaps, to accept the assurances that I give in relation to these issues, but be that as it may I have put those assurances on the public record: I have no wish to extend the powers that I have.

In relation to those amendments that relate to decisions that I have to take, I will take advice, obviously from Treasury. In the committee stage I will be able to place on the record some examples of where I have already received advice that unless I do have some powers to, in essence, suspend some of the provisions of the Public Finance and Audit Act, the considerable decisions that I am having to take quickly and urgently would be contrary to the provisions of the Public Finance and Audit Act.

Decisions that I have to take in terms of moving expenditure authorities and appropriations between agencies on a very short time line are, as I am advised, restricted by the current provisions of the Public Finance and Audit Act. I am sure that the parliament and the people of South Australia would not want those restrictions to prevent what might be urgent decisions that have to be taken during the global pandemic that we are confronting.

We can go through those particular details in the committee stage, but as I, on behalf of the government, approach the amendments moved by the opposition and the amendments moved by the Hon. Mr Parnell, as I said, we will approach them—we will take advice over the break—with a high threshold which might not always be applied by governments, Liberal and Labor, that says, 'Why is it that we can't? What is the problem' with the particular amendment?

It may well mean that we have to suggest a tweaking, or whatever it is, that the essential purpose can admit, but we will do so within the spirit of trying to see whether we can reach agreement. That is the essential reason for the government seeking these particular changes with the potential amendments that are being moved that can be accommodated. In the end, there may well be a number that, on our advice, we will be urging the upper house not to support.

In relation to the other aspects, I think the debate is best left to the committee stage. There are significant issues in relation to residential and commercial tenancies. The treasurers, both through the Board of Treasurers and through the Council on Federal Financial Relations, have been actively engaged, but the final decisions, at least in relation to commercial tenancies, have been taken by the national cabinet and have been very significantly led by the Prime Minister in terms of his particular views, perhaps not surprisingly, given his public statements. I think there are still significant complexities and challenges ahead, if I can use a nicely understated phrase, and there is considerable work that will still need to be done.

All governments—state, territory and the federal government—have agreed on the essential premise, which I think all members in this chamber have supported; that is, we need a period of pause or hibernation in relation to evictions—and there is this six-month pause in relation to evictions. The circumstances during the six months are going to be significant challenges. As the Hon. Ms Bonaros, in a nicely understated contribution, at least in this particular part, said, it is a significant issue when any state government interferes with legally binding contracts between two consenting parties. With her legal background, that is, as I said, a nicely understated phrase. Nevertheless, that is in essence what the parliaments of Australia are being asked to do.

It is a perfect example, certainly from my side of politics, of how the whole notion of potentially either tearing up a contract or significantly amending a contract that two parties have consented and entered into is extraordinarily complicated. As I said, whilst the Prime Minister has led this particular initiative—he made the announcements on behalf of the national cabinet—it is going to be left to state and territory governments as to how the detail is to be implemented.

This will be our first pass at the legislation, but it is my personal view, not a state government view, that it will not be our last. That is, when the parliament reconvenes in May—I think 12 May is the date that is being mentioned—I will be stunned if we are not asked to further clarify the details in relation to what was only announced yesterday. Two jurisdictions have already passed legislation prior to the announcements yesterday, being the ACT and Tasmania, and we are obviously passing legislation today.

So three of the eight jurisdictions will have passed legislation without actually being able to look at the detail of what the Prime Minister announced yesterday on behalf of the national cabinet and without being able to consult with various other stakeholders as to what the implications might be and, therefore, how each of us in our jurisdictions might respond. There are definitional issues. We have a retail and commercial tenancies act, but other jurisdictions make very significant distinctions between what they understand to be retail and commercial. Each of us are different, as a product of decades of legislative experience within our jurisdictions.

The national solution that has come from the national cabinet and is now descending upon each of us is a significant challenge for us all, and I think it is probably useful for us to establish the major principle; that is, thou shalt not evict anyone for the next six months. That at least gives that protection for a period of time, but we are now going to have to move mighty quickly to work out the detail of what the implications of that are.

I think the Hon. Mr Parnell nailed it absolutely when he said that one of the key players in all of this is completely beyond state jurisdictional control: the financial institutions, and the banks in particular. Yes, we have the legal authority with landlords and tenants but the key players in all of this, in many cases, are the financial institutions—the banks in particular—and we have no legislative authority in that particular area. That is a significant issue that will have to be addressed, but there will be more of that in the committee stage.

With that, I indicate that I look forward to the committee stage of the debate, even if I have to say on a number of occasions, 'I am not a lawyer and this is my view.' I have a considerable phalanx of advisers, both legal and non-legal, Treasury and others, some of whom I recognise and some I do not, but there is considerable expertise, I am told. They are all somehow going to be socially distanced, sitting outside and inside the box. We will have to pinch-hit as individual questions are raised. I hope members will be patient with me having to seek advice, in particular in relation to legal issues, when they ask questions. With that, I look forward to the committee stage of this very important piece of legislation.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Rather than a question at clause 1 I thought it might be useful to outline some of the parameters that we will be looking at in the bill, as I think the Hon. Mark Parnell did, which was helpful. Many of the questions we will be asking are similar to the questions we asked during the Microsoft Teams briefing we had, and they will go to the policy behind particular measures, why the government feels that measure is needed, on whose instigation this measure is being proposed, particularly with some of the more draconian changes we are making, and also examples of how particular measures are going to be used.

We received some of these answers late last night but there are a lot more and, as we go through individual clauses, we will be looking for them to be answered. I appreciate the comments the Treasurer has made in relation to giving as fulsome answers as he properly can. Each of the measures in this bill are proposed for a reason. There is something that obviously the government or its advisers or someone from the department thinks needs to be done in order to have these measures in place.

We appreciate the Treasurer talking about the helpfulness he is taking with the committee stage, and also with these extraordinary measures the Treasurer properly recognises that we are probably going to have a higher and more extraordinary way to seek answers. I think the Treasurer has already recognised himself that a flippant answer like, 'I'm not a lawyer,' probably is not going to do a lot of good during the committee stage when we have a vast team of advisers.

I was going to spend some time—given the similar situation members of the crossbench found themselves in with answers being provided by the Attorney-General—going through asking questions about when the answers were prepared and when they were ready to be provided, because it was abundantly clear from the contributions from the crossbench that the Attorney-General had answers to the opposition and crossbench questions when she went into the lower house yesterday and chose not to provide them.

I think that is clear enough and I am not going to waste time going through that and trying to seek answers to those questions, but I would implore the Attorney to do what many of her colleagues are doing and just stop the churlish political games and be open with members of parliament and what we are seeking to do. I thank the Treasurer for not playing those political games in the contribution he made, and the willingness in terms of how we are going to get this bill through.

The CHAIR: Are there any other contributions at clause 1? The Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I think there is a series of questions that I sort of flagged. Why, under the Emergency Management Act, would the State Coordinator need to be able to break the laws of Maralinga Tjarutja land rights or APY land rights acts?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This extraordinary power that the parliament is being asked to support—and we thank the Labor Party in another place for their support for this particular provision and recognising its importance—that is, the government's advice is, and we have not been through every, whatever the number is, total piece of legislation saying, 'We need to give the State Coordinator the power to break this particular act, this particular one, this particular one, etc.'

The reality is that, during a global pandemic and with emergency powers, we just do not know at very short notice which ones were in a position where we may well have to take actions which infringe upon a particular requirement in a particular piece of legislation. The position clearly is that we have not been through every piece of legislation and said, 'In this area we need to do it.' In some areas we are aware, and that is why there are specific provisions in the Public Finance and Audit Act and the residential and commercial tenancies act. Where we know we have to amend it, we have included it in the omnibus bill.

In some of the other jurisdictions, they have not been quite as specific; they have had a more generic clause like the one to which the honourable member is referring. This is, in essence, the failsafe clause. That is, we have nominated the ones that on advice we know we have to amend, and that is included in the omnibus bill, but there are some pieces of legislation which in the end in an emergency the Coordinator might say, 'I have to do this in the interests of public health and safety,' and the legal advice might be, 'Well, if you do that, it is going to offend this particular piece of legislation,' and someone says, 'We never thought of that.' In the absence of that, the State Coordinator would not be in a position to be able to undertake that particular function in the interests of public health and safety.

That is why there is this extraordinary provision which, as I said earlier, in any other circumstance we would not be contemplating. It is an extraordinary power to give to any individual in relation to, in essence, any law of the state being able to take these particular decisions. I cannot give you the advice about—and the member can go through a number of pieces of legislation as to: 'Why do you need to do this?' because the answer will probably be, in most cases we probably will not have to and the State Coordinator is not going to, and the State Coordinator is restricted in relation to the pieces of legislation that he has to, in essence, override.

It has to be for the purposes of the powers that he has as State Coordinator in managing public health, welfare and safety, whatever the phrase is, in the legislation. It cannot be willy-nilly, it cannot be used for any purpose; it has to be for the purposes of managing and coordinating the government's response and the state's response to the pandemic. There is no answer to the specific question of, 'Do we need to override a provision of the act and what provision do we?' If we knew that, we would have included it in the omnibus bill. At this stage we are not aware and, in all likelihood, with most of these pieces of legislation, he will not have to take decisions which override any particular provision of the legislation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What possible reason could there be for the emergency management powers to be used with the Proof of Sunrise and Sunset Act? That is the obvious question. I will not actually expect an answer, because I will not get one that is not rhetorical and without advisers screwing up their faces when we ask a question that I think is pretty legitimate as to why every single act that this state currently has on its books is subject to these extraordinary powers and why a number of acts have not actually been identified in a transparent and clear way as those that are likely to be subject to the use of these powers.

As I said in my second reading speech, Aboriginal people in this state have land rights, hard-fought and won, and are currently largely in self-isolation. Some communities such as Davenport believe they are in lockdown. Some communities such as Davenport have raised their extraordinarily profound concerns about the history of treatment on missions, of stolen generations, using extraordinary government powers against these people, and they are given no assurances when there is a trite response to a question of why the Maralinga Tjarutja Land Rights Act and the APY Land Rights Act should be subject to the extraordinary powers of the State Coordinator under this piece of legislation. Who was consulted in the drafting of these provisions around the Emergency Management Act and the South Australian Public Health Act powers?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Given the urgency of the legislation and, I think, as the Attorney-General indicated in the debate yesterday, the normal consultation was unable to be conducted. There might have been minor changes to this, but the essential consultation was with government officers and advisers. Our legal teams were available to the government, and clearly the public health people, because they have been actively engaged in this and might have indicated to the legal people in the Attorney-General's Department that there were particular problems with what we needed to do, and the advice might have been that it offended a particular piece of legislation.

The normal process that we would conduct and be expected to conduct is one in which you send a draft copy of the bill out to all stakeholders, including the Law Society. With a bill like this, clearly every stakeholder group in the state is impacted, and therefore there would be an expectation that they would be consulted. Given the urgency, that was just not possible for it to occur.

The advice was centred on essentially the advice which is available to the government. One of the members in their contributions today—I think it might have been the Hon. Ms Franks—asked, 'Well, why didn't the cabinet pick up this particular issue in terms of the amendment?' This is the perfect example of the benefit of the parliament being able to consider, in a reasonable fashion, amendments. It is a fresh set of eyes from other parties and other individuals in relation to the legislation that we have before us.

As I said and I say again: we will enter a consideration of the amendments with a spirit of seeing whether or not we can support them, as opposed to a combative attitude that some governments have towards crossbench or opposition amendments on other pieces of legislation. The normal consultation did not apply. The consultation was essentially on the basis of the advice that was available to the government in a very urgent fashion.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Once it was finalised, was the bill sent at any time by the government to the Law Society? What was the Law Society's advice?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think as I indicated, in the normal circumstance we would send it to organisations like the Law Society and other stakeholder groups. That did not occur in relation to this particular legislation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In the other place the Attorney-General noted that the State Coordinator (aka the police commissioner) was very happy with the powers in this bill and supported them. Who else supported this bill and the extraordinary powers under the Emergency Management Act and the South Australian Public Health Act? You mentioned public officers, but you have not mentioned any names.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Ultimately, those who supported it were the 14 ministers and all the officers and departmental people who advised those officers. Some are obviously more actively engaged in managing the COVID-19 pandemic than other departments and agencies. Nevertheless, all are impacted, so all ministers in a very short time frame, I have to say, had the capacity to take advice from their departments and agencies and to provide advice or comment when the cabinet considered the legislation at very short notice.

In terms of individual officers within Health, I am not in a position to list individual officers. My understanding is that the Chief Public Health Officer, Associate Professor Spurrier, together with the State Coordinator, was consulted, but again I would not expect Associate Professor Spurrier to be all over the issues in relation to the Public Finance and Audit Act. She would have been all over the issues that directly relate to the health issues, and issues in relation to those sorts of powers.

Insofar as individual aspects of this bill related to individual departments and agencies, they would obviously have had greater input. I would assume that in the residential and commercial tenancies area not only were our Treasury people actively engaged, but—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I didn’t ask about that area. I asked about public health and emergency management specifically.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am just giving you a broader answer than the one you asked for, but I have answered your question. In relation to the broader answer, people in Consumer and Business Services, such as Mr Soulio and others, would have been party to providing advice to the government as well.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Was the ICAC commissioner consulted in the drafting of this bill with regard to his potential interest in having his term extended?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: When the police commissioner gave advice on this bill was it clear that he may benefit from having his contract extended?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Regarding the position of the police commissioner, the government had the power and has the power without this legislation to extend his contract. I am not going to go into decisions that are ultimately decisions for the Premier of the state. That is entirely the prerogative of the Premier. There is a power already, without this legislation, to extend the contract of the police commissioner, and that is a decision for the Premier, ultimately.

This particular aspect of it is not, on my understanding, giving any additional benefit, if you look at it that way, in terms of an extension to the terms of the police commissioner that he did not previously have. The government has the power without this legislation. If the parliament votes down this legislation, the government still has the power to extend the contract of the police commissioner, and that may well be the decision that the Premier has taken, is taking or will take. I am not going to pre-empt that decision; that is a decision for the Premier.

I do not know when the police commissioner's contract expires. I understand it is probably in the next 12 months or so, but that is a decision for the Premier. He has the power to extend it anyway. I would hate anyone listening to this debate to think that the police commissioner in some way has manufactured a set of circumstances where he is going to get a personal benefit in relation to this. Certainly, that is not a view to which the government subscribes.

I place on the record an acknowledgement of the exceptional work I think the police commissioner has done as the State Coordinator in relation to the very difficult circumstances he confronts. I know that I can speak on behalf of the government acknowledging not only the work he has done but also that done by Associate Professor Spurrier, the other deputy public health officers and the many, many others who are actively engaged both at the public level but clearly at the level of providing services within our hospitals and other institutions as well.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: With the committee's indulgence, I have a fairly technical question to which I do not expect an answer now, but I would like to give the minister's advisers the lunch period to consider it. It relates to clause 8 rather than clause 1, but I figure it will save us time if the advisers have a chance to consider this. It is an issue I raised in the briefing, but I have not yet had a comprehensive answer.

It relates to the eviction moratorium, to the idea that during this period of crisis landlords should not be evicting residential tenants. The bill makes it fairly clear that, if the reason a landlord seeks eviction is because the tenant is not paying their rent and the reason the tenant is not paying their rent is because of hardship brought about by the COVID-19 virus, that is covered. I think that is pretty right.

There are a whole range of other reasons that a residential tenancy agreement can be brought to an end. For example, if someone is damaging the property, wrecking the joint, for example, then most people would think, well, no, if you are demolishing the place you are not getting the protection of this eviction moratorium. You might also have illegal conduct, which is another reason to end a tenancy agreement—the meth lab you hear about on the news every so often.

There are other areas where it might be a breach of the agreement but would be protected; for example, someone who is required to operate their business from home. The residential tenancy agreement might say, 'No, this is a house, and you live in it, you are not to conduct a business from here.' Under the COVID emergency you may well need to conduct your business from home, so it might be a technical breach of a residential tenancy agreement. I think that is probably covered by the bill, but can I get clarification on that?

We then go to a range of reasons that a landlord can end a tenancy agreement, and these include a range of measures where the landlord wants the property back for a specific reason. These are set out in the act: for example, if the landlord wants to sell the property with vacant possession (I am not clear—I might have missed it, it might be in the bill and your advisers can explain where it is).

Further, if the landlord wants to renovate the home; the landlord wants to move back into the home themselves; or, the landlord wants one of their immediate family members, a child, for example, to be able to move into the home. These are situations where there is no breach at all on the part of the tenant. The tenant has done nothing wrong, they have paid their rent, but the landlord, provided they give 60 days notice, is entitled to possession for these reasons. I am not clear how that fits into this regime. Are those evictions effectively suspended as well?

The final two: one is the so-called 'no cause' eviction, in other words, the landlord wants to end the arrangement, they do not want the place back themselves, they just do not want the tenant there anymore—they do not have to give a reason, they just have to give 90 days notice. The question is whether evictions for no cause are protected under this bill.

The final situation is the so-called section 90 third-party evictions, and that is one where the neighbours, for example (it is a unique provision where third parties can interfere with a contractual relationship—the Hon. Connie Bonaros made a contribution before), as a third party can interfere in a contractual relationship. If the neighbours believe that a tenant is behaving really badly and interfering with their lifestyle, whether it is noise, aggressive behaviour, or whatever, the neighbours can go to the tribunal—even though the landlord is quite happy with the arrangement and the tenant is obviously quite happy to stay there—and can seek eviction: section 90 neighbour evictions. It is nearly always on the grounds of antisocial behaviour. So the question is: are those sorts of evictions also protected by this new act?

Something that overrides all of those—and the government has given me an answer, but it would be good to put it on the record as well—is that even if we pass a bill that says you cannot be evicted, if you get a letter saying that the owner is selling the house and, 'Here's 60 days' notice, move out,' for example, unless you know that is not allowed then you will probably just move out. Not everyone is legally qualified and not everyone is paying attention to the bill we are passing today.

If a landlord seeks possession of the property, unless the tenant knows that during this crisis that is not allowed they will probably just go along with the notice. That might result in homelessness—who knows what it might result in. The government has said that yes, there will be some sort of publicity campaign, because we have to bring this to the attention of the huge proportion of tenants in South Australia.

My question would be: exactly what is the government proposing? I think the answer I got in the briefing was that everybody has a bond deposited with Consumer and Business Affairs—I think you have all the emails, I think that was the answer I was given—so you can actually directly communicate, but if the minister could put that on the record after lunch that would be helpful as well. Thank you for your indulgence; I figured they were fairly technical questions that the lunch break might help answer.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I can indicate what the intention of the legislation was; my reading is that the legislation makes it quite clear it is only in relation to COVID-19 issues that there is this prevention of eviction. In the early examples, which I think are clearer, where someone is destroying a property or a variety of other examples, I would be very confident that our drafting allows those sorts of evictions to continue. If the tenant has plenty of money, is not impacted by COVID-19, and is destroying your property then why should you not be able to evict them?

A number of the examples the member has given are pretty easy to answer, and I would be stunned if the draft, as I read it, does not allow those circumstances. Some of the others towards the latter part of his contribution are more technical in nature. Again, my reading is that it has to be somehow related to COVID-19; some of those appear to potentially be related but others clearly not, on my reading.

However, I will get advice from the government's legal advisers and have a prepared response that I will not veer from in producing, unless it is clearly contrary to the intent of the Treasurer and the national cabinet in relation to the issue: that is, this protection is there for people who are going to be significantly impacted by COVID-19. It is not there to change the arrangements other than to try to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic. That is the drafting instruction. I will seek advice on the technical questions.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:15.