Bills

Return to Work (COVID-19 Injury) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 May 2020.)

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS (17:10): Front-line and support workers have been the real heroes of the coronavirus pandemic. Without hesitation they stood up to the task of protecting South Australians. We owe them our thanks and we will forever be grateful for their service. The Marshall Liberal government seems to lack the same compassion that this side of the chamber has for those workers.

Just yesterday, job cuts were announced in public hospitals and from the beginning of this pandemic the government has been reluctant to assist workers in any further capacity. Workers covered in this bill include those employed in hospitals and surgeries, aged-care facilities, childcare centres, aviation workers, police, emergency services, transport, kindergartens and schools, pharmacies, supermarkets, delis, convenience stores and petrol stations.

I am proud to speak up for these workers today and stand up for workers in high-risk workplaces to gain greater recognition in workers compensation during COVID-19. These workplaces are and were required to stay open during the emergency and yet they are not offered any greater protections through the law even though they were directly placed in harm's way.

The bill has two sets of criteria: workers must undertake duties because they are critical to the ongoing operation of economic, health and emergency functions, and workers are being exposed to a multitude of people every time they go to work. As with most emergencies, they are unpredictable and often this means we need flexible legislation. For this reason, the minister has the power to make regulation to add additional workers as they see fit.

If a worker in a prescribed workplace contracts COVID-19, it will be presumed that they contracted the virus from the workplace; hence reversing the onus of proof, as the act already does for more than two dozen other conditions in certain circumstances. For essential workers there is an increased risk of infection, even if their employer or workplace has increased personal protective gear or other protections within the workplace. These workers simply have no choice but to be exposed to people every day.

For casual workers on low pay with no access to leave, this bill provides critical income protection if they fall ill with COVID-19 in the prescribed workplace. For permanent workers, it adds an additional layer of protection and builds on the Return to Work Act schedules that already list presumptive conditions for which the standard onus of proof is reversed. With the challenging economic hardships we are facing we must consider that an individual may decide to go to work rather than to stay home with an illness.

The harsh reality is that without protection such as the Return to Work Act some people cannot afford to take time off and will continue to work with an illness even if that comes at the expense of others being infected. We simply cannot afford for this to happen. It is incredibly disappointing that the government has not shown an ounce of support for this type of legislation. This pandemic has highlighted their broader agenda and their top-down approach to continue economic growth in the state.

I thank the Hon. Tammy Franks for her contribution to the chamber with a similar bill and thank her for her continuing support of workers' rights. Workers deserve better rights now more than ever. I indicate my support for this bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:14): Given I have a similar bill on the Notice Paper and have also called for workers compensation presumptive arrangements under our Return to Work scheme, it is no surprise that the Greens will be supporting this bill today. Indeed, I must again pay tribute to my colleague David Shoebridge in the New South Wales parliament, who took a standalone bill to the New South Wales parliament very similar to that which I will introduce.

Indeed, the Hon. Rob Lucas was railing against the impact that my bill would have, how the sky would fall in in this state should we actually afford workers not just some kind words and sweet niceties and platitudes but some proper cover should they contract coronavirus during this pandemic, or indeed if we put them in harm's way and then did not support them to be able to continue to live, and in fact forced them into presenteeism, further endangering not just themselves but those around them.

At the same time that the Hon. Rob Lucas was citing business advocate after business advocate about how this would be the most terrible thing to do to South Australia's economy and industry, the New South Wales parliament was passing the Greens' amendment to government legislation to enact those very measures that the Hon. Rob Lucas claimed would make the sky fall in in this state. While it possibly has rained in the past few weeks in New South Wales, I note that the sky remains intact.

The Liberal government of New South Wales supported those Greens' provisions to ensure COVID care under their workers compensation scheme for prescribed workers and certainly in people-facing industries. It was not only the Liberal government that supported it. Indeed, I think the Minister for Small Business in that state wholeheartedly thanked the Hon. David Shoebridge for putting that item on the agenda. The Labor opposition, of course, unsurprisingly, supported it, but actually every single member of the upper house supported these provisions that we discuss here today.

I note that the Marshall Liberal government therefore stands in stark contrast to the Berejiklian government on care for workers under the COVID pandemic—workers in these people-facing industries who have suddenly been put in precarious and dangerous positions through the very nature of the virus and the nature of their work.

The Greens stand by workers and we also stand by public health provisions that ensure we are not supporting and pushing people into presenteeism. Sick people during this pandemic should not be turning up to work. We should be ensuring the protections they need not to do so. If somebody contracts coronavirus and dies, we should be giving them supports. We know that in the UK a bus driver has died from this disease and has been left completely unsupported, and yet we are putting people in harm's way with a virus we do not yet fully understand but we know is contracted through the contact that we are forcing particularly on people in what are now known as essential industries to undertake each and every day.

Essential industries are traditionally seen as those such as health and emergency services and policing, but essential industries, we have quickly learned in the last two months, are the provision of food and services. The provision of those goods and services and activities allow us to stay home if we are not in those industries, allow us to stay safe, but do not allow them necessarily to have that same safety and security.

I think, given that these provisions are available to all workers, it is simply that we are making it less onerous upon them to take advantage of the workers compensation scheme by changing that presumptive relationship and recognising that, rather than these particular workers staying home, staying safe, that they are having to go to work and be in harm's way to keep our society going, that we should at the very least change the rules around that presumption, given that we are putting them in these positions, we are putting them in danger. We owe them the absolute respect of ensuring that, where they do get sick, we protect them, where they are in danger and have symptoms of being sick, that we protect them and we protect ourselves by doing so.

Certainly to not afford what I have called COVID care is cutting off our noses to spite our faces. We want people to stay safe under the pandemic, but if we are not going to provide the protections people need we are going to see presenteeism, we are going to see people put in danger and make that choice to perhaps not turn up to work or to turn up to work and possibly make others sick unless we provide this presumptive treatment under this pandemic.

The Greens have noted that the Labor opposition prefer their bill to the Greens' bill. I note the amendments that have been filed not just by the opposition, which largely are clerical and administrative in nature, but the Hon. Connie Bonaros has filed amendments in terms of the prescribed workplace definitions and also the inclusion of disability, and the Greens will be supporting those, as well as that of the facility not being a private residence at which residential accommodation, respite care and other supports and services are provided to people with a disability.

The Greens have also today lodged amendments that reflect some of our bill, the bill that the Labor opposition did not prefer. I note that one of the issues I raised in the previous debate was a commencement date, and the Greens have reissued our commencement date that sees this presumptive COVID care retrospectively, back to 15 March.

We also have noted that the Labor approach has been to define workplaces rather than an extensive series of workers. I note that this approach with healthcare workers has not prescribed those particular workers as a class but has instead prescribed their place of work, that being defined as a hospital, day surgery premises or a pharmacy, which I believe excludes many healthcare workers. I ask the Labor opposition to explain whether or not GPs are covered under their bill, because most GPs do not work in hospitals, in pharmacies or where day surgery is performed, and whether a range of nurses are covered under its bill, particularly those who work in community clinics.

In particular, of greatest concern right now, is whether or not the COVID clinics themselves, if not in hospital premises, are covered by the Labor Party legislation. I note that, with a short time frame, I have contacted a range of the health services unions, specifically HSU but also the ANMF, the AMA and the salaried medical officers unions. Certainly the ANMF has welcomed the Greens' amendment to the Labor opposition bill.

I note that it would be out of order for me to comment necessarily on committee evidence, but I am sure it was reported in the media somewhere that SASMOA wrote very early on in the pandemic to the Treasurer via the Premier, that they were seeking to be covered by a presumptive treatment under the Return to Work Act for their workers, their front-line medical doctors and salaried medical staff to be covered under the pandemic by this treatment.

Their correspondence, I understand, continues to remain unanswered and unresponded to by the government and I note was strangely absent from the Treasurer's contribution to my bill. I am hoping that he will remedy that today with his response to SASMOA's request for just the sort of COVID care that we are talking about supporting today.

With that, I do look forward to the committee stage of the debate. I remind the Marshall ministers that they are out of step with their New South Wales counterparts. I also remind them that this does not actually create a new entitlement. It does, however, reduce the blue tape that has been put in their way to access this COVID care under our workers compensation scheme, and whether it is green tape, red tape or, in this case, blue tape, I thought simplification and protection of workers was what we were all here for under this pandemic. With those remarks, I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:25): I rise to speak in support of the Return to Work (COVID-19 Injury) Amendment Bill 2020 introduced by the Hon. Kyam Maher. As has been highlighted already, we have already indicated our support for a similar bill that has been proposed by the Hon. Tammy Franks, which broadly shared the same intentions. There are, as the Hon. Tammy Franks has mentioned, amendments that have been filed to this bill. I have amendments that deal specifically with the disability accommodation sector, and the Hon. Tammy Franks has also indicated amendments that I think are very necessary whichever way we go on this issue.

It is an understatement to say this pandemic has caused a great deal of grief, concern, worry and anxiety to all South Australians. However, South Australians have risen to the challenge with a level of commitment and diligence that makes me very proud to be a South Australian. I am especially pleased as a member of the Legislative Council and as an ordinary citizen to have been able to play my part, as small as it may be, in implementing temporary legislative measures that have been so far very effective in managing the health impacts of this declared emergency.

Ensuring that we do not see a recurrence of infection rates and responding to the significant economic impacts on families and businesses is going to be just as challenging and will require more longer term substantive responses from all levels of government—there is no question about that. The outstanding and timely health advice we have received and the community's adherence to those directions have directly contributed to the situation we have today, when there are no cases of COVID-19 in South Australia that we know of, none in hospital, and we have no cases in residential care. As of today, over 102,300 COVID tests have been conducted, and that is an enviable achievement.

I know how hard it has been to comply with some of those restrictions and the isolation, especially when we could not visit loved ones who were ill, in care, vulnerable, aged or dying, and still in many cases cannot. At the moment I have a family member who is in hospital, and none of us are able to visit, which makes it particularly difficult, not just on families, because there is, of course, only so much you can get over the phone.

I can point to another example of a young mum, also in a facility, who was not able to see her kids for weeks and weeks as a result of COVID-19. The impact on those children has been absolutely tremendous and should not be underestimated. The limited number of people who have been able to attend funerals has added more to the grief and distress of many South Australians who have lost loved ones during this period.

I will point also to the—I will call it very difficult—situation of quarantine. I have a lot of sympathy for those individuals who have had to spend up to two weeks or longer locked in a hotel room. Often, we think of hotel rooms as a great escape. I can attest to the fact that I have some very limited and different firsthand experience of the stresses of COVID-19, which were brought on as a result of isolation after contact with a colleague who had himself been in contact with another colleague who had tested positive for the virus, and it is not pleasant to be effectively quarantined from your family for two, three or four days, let alone 14 or more days. It is a very difficult situation.

What I do not know firsthand, though—what I cannot fathom—is how difficult it is to be a front-line or emergency response worker like a nurse, a doctor, a teacher, a shop assistant, a police officer, an ambulance officer, a bus driver or a COVID-19 testing station attendant. These people have all bravely risked their own health during the pandemic for the greater good, often to the detriment and risk to themselves and their families, while the majority of us had the comparatively easier and much safer option of working from home with our families and our pets.

A lot of people took part in baking copious amounts of goodies—I wouldn't know about that—reading, home exercise, catching up on chores, gardening around the home, watching endless hours of movies and trying to homeschool our children—whatever it took to pass the time of day during the lockdown when you could not attend work. I am sure many of us have a new appreciation of what teachers in particular do each and every day, often with very little thanks and recognition—I know I certainly do. I hope South Australian teachers know more than ever how valued they are.

The bill is aimed at minimising the WorkCover disputes and legal proceedings and provides critical financial certainty to those front-line workers. It means the link between a worker who is suspected of or diagnosed with COVID-19 in the workplace does not have to be established, that it is automatically presumed the worker contracted the illness on account of the nature of their work. However, an important element of this bill is that the disease is presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to be a work injury arising from a person's employment.

That safeguard of including the clause in the absence of proof to the contrary does provide a check and balance to the reversal of the presumption that usually applies. The bill also has a practical approach of covering prescribed workplaces and prescribed occupations but, as we have pointed out, some of those have been left out—some that we thought ought be included—both of which can be added by regulation should they be found to be too restrictive or have excluded an occupational workplace that should have been prescribed.

Defining emergency services and passenger transport work provides some additional clarity in this area of who is covered by the bill as well. The amendment that I have filed in my name, [Bonaros-1], amendment No. 1, as the Hon. Tammy Franks has outlined, ensures that disability is included in the definition so that a prescribed workplace includes a facility (not being a private residence) at which residential accommodation, respite care or other support and services are provided to people with disability. This means that facilities such as Minda, Rose Terrace Lodge and Bedford Phoenix are covered as prescribed workplaces, so their employees are covered even if not listed as a prescribed occupation.

COVID-19 has highlighted the critical high-risk occupations, like a cleaner and carer, that may not immediately spring to mind as front-line essential workers but who nevertheless cannot avoid contact with the public and would have commonly breached social distancing rules. The bill has been made retrospective by the amendment filed, and rightly so. We have been dealing with this pandemic for many months now, and we will be dealing with it for a long time coming. Even though our response has been outstanding, there have still been 440 cases and four deaths from COVID-19 in South Australia.

Our neighbours in Victoria and New South Wales have new outbreaks occurring and clusters that have spread. While the risk has lessened for us in SA, we must remain forever vigilant. COVID-19 has not gone away and will be an issue for all Australians for a long time coming, potentially until a vaccine is found, but we do not know at this point in time. There are many unknown factors.

Until then, this bill aims to provide our front-line essential workers with some level of financial assurance and protection and, critically, access to WorkCover should they contract the illness. Who better to protect than those who have so bravely protected and cared for all of us throughout this pandemic? With those words, I commend the honourable member for introducing the bill, just as I commend the Hon. Tammy Franks for introducing hers, and I look forward to the passage of one of these pieces of legislation today.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:35): I apologise, Mr President, I have been on a Treasurer's teleconference, so I have been unable to hear the I am sure very worthwhile contributions of honourable members. Given this is similar to a bill that was debated a couple of weeks ago, I can assume that the contributions were similar to the contributions on the previous bill that was discussed, which I think was moved by the Hon. Ms Franks.

Can I indicate that the government outlined its position very strongly on that previous occasion, which I think was sometime in the middle of May. The contribution was on 13 May, for those erstwhile readers of Hansard. The contribution I made on that bill on 13 May 2020 is a fair summary of the government's position in relation to both that bill and this particular bill as well, so I will not repeat all the arguments that I put on behalf of the government as to why we will not be supporting the legislation.

Nevertheless, given the fate of the vote on the last bill, I am assuming the majority in the council are likely to support the bill through the Legislative Council, but the government's position will remain opposed to the legislation. I highlight again the overwhelming tidal wave of opposition that this bill and the other bill have engendered in the employer community. I think I quoted at length from the views of the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell AO, and placed her views on the record.

I placed on the record the views of Master Grocers Australia, who represent a lot of the independent retailers in South Australia—Drakes, Romeos, Chapley's and the Eudunda Foodland group—and their very strong opposition to this particular proposition. My very good friends representing the independent retailers, the South Australian Independent Retailers group, are trenchantly opposed to this particular legislation and the other bill as well. In addition, the Motor Trade Association is strongly opposed and the Australasian Convenience and Petroleum Marketers Association is strongly opposed.

The Australasian Association of Convenience Stores, the peak body of the convenience industry, is strongly opposed. The Australian Retailers Association is strongly opposed. The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia is strongly opposed. The Australian Industry Group is opposed. The Master Builders Association is opposed. The Australian Lottery and Newsagents Association, representing the small lotteries and newsagencies throughout South Australia, those small businesses battling at the moment, is strongly opposed.

The Pharmacy Guild of Australia is strongly opposed. The Australian Hairdressing Council is strongly opposed. Business SA has also expressed their concerns about the legislation. The Self Insurers of South Australia have indicated their opposition. ReturnToWorkSA have also indicated their opposition to the legislation. As I said, there has been a tidal wave of trenchant opposition and alarm expressed at the legislation that is being moved in this chamber by the Labor Party and the Greens.

There are provisions in this particular bill which are even more onerous than some elements of the bill which was moved by the Greens in this place. At least in a couple of areas the Greens sought to restrict the employees working in those particular industry sectors to those who have face-to-face contact with members of the public. The Labor Party legislation does not even do that. For example, someone working in a supermarket who is buried at the back of the supermarket working in IT or corporate matters or whatever it might be is covered by the Labor Party legislation but is not covered by the legislation moved by the Australian Greens in relation to it. So there are some differences between the two bills but, nevertheless, overall they are extraordinarily similar.

The only other point I would make in opposing the bill is: what is the issue that is being sought to be addressed in relation to COVID-19 and workers compensation? ReturnToWorkSA advised me that as of this week there have been four claims made for compensation under COVID-19. Three of the four have been accepted and one was withdrawn. So there have been four claims; three have been accepted and one has been withdrawn. In relation to the public sector, the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment has advised us as of this week that there has not been a claim in relation to workers compensation.

I think the challenge for those who continue to pursue this particular line in this particular legislation is to demonstrate the reasons for the legislation and where the current arrangements are inadequate in their view. The government's strong position, as outlined on 13 May, on this occasion remains the same. We will not be supporting the legislation. Nevertheless, whilst we divided and tested the numbers on the last occasion, we accept the inevitability as members have spoken that they are going to support the legislation. So our views remain opposed but we will not be seeking to divide the house.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (17:42): I thank all members for their contributions on this important bill. I will address some of the remarks that have been made and also maybe just address where the opposition stands on the amendments that have been filed. I will very quickly reflect on the comments from the Leader of the Government in this chamber, the Treasurer, whose mindset is that you need to wait until something goes wrong, you need to wait until a worker is unfairly denied, you need to wait until someone who is working on the front line as a nurse in a hospital has their claim disputed before you do anything about it. That is not the opposition's view.

The opposition's view is to do something pre-emptive and fix the problem before it has arisen and someone has their life turned upside down and encounters difficulty. I know that is not the view of the government. The government would prefer to have people denied and then say, 'Look at this. We never thought this would be a problem.' That is just not the view that we take. We use a precautionary principle in relation to this. If this bill is successful, our great wish is that it has no work to do; that would be a fantastic outcome. However, I do not think we plan for the best possible outcome and legislate that way. I just do not think that that is a sensible way for us to operate as the Leader of the Government would have us do.

I note the contribution from the Hon. Tammy Franks about a passage of similar and perhaps even more expansive legislation through the New South Wales parliament, supported by the New South Wales government, supported by the Hon. Rob Lucas's counterpart, the Treasurer in New South Wales, through both houses of parliament becoming law. It is good enough for New South Wales but it is not good enough for the Hon. Rob Lucas and workers in South Australia, which I think is an absolute shame, but that is the choice of the Hon. Rob Lucas and the message he chooses to send.

I will not go into great detail, but I might turn to amendments that have been filed. The opposition has moved three amendments to our own bill. The first and the third amendments are typographical amendments picked up by parliamentary counsel. The second amendment goes to exactly the same issue as the Hon. Tammy Franks' first amendment and that is the commencement date and at what date a worker may get the benefit of this bill.

The Hon. Tammy Franks' first amendment notes that the bill will be taken to have come into operation on 15 March, that is, in effect, retrospectively covering any worker who contracts COVID-19 from 15 March. What the opposition's amendment No. 2 [Maher-1] does is insert in the section that talks about if a person is employed and contracts COVID-19, 'If, whether before or after the commencement of this clause', so it puts no date. It is retrospective to any time that a worker contracts COVID-19. By the very definition of COVID-19, this is not something a worker two or three years ago is going to contract. This is a disease that is relatively recently known to the world, so if a worker at any stage contracts COVID-19, under the amendment that the opposition has filed they will get the benefit of this bill.

I turn to the Hon. Connie Bonaros' amendment and thank her for filing it and also providing it to the opposition. The opposition has had time to consider the amendment. It does what many of the opposition's parts of our bill do and that is define the workplace and define it in relation to other legislation, so disability is defined in relation to the meaning it has in the Disability Inclusion Act. It then goes on to talk about the workplace at which this act seeks to cover. I can indicate that the opposition has had a chance to consider that and will be supporting that amendment.

In relation to the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendments, we will not be supporting the first one with the 15 March date, again because it is the same topic—

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is what the committee stage is for and these are reasons why we can debate these things and come to a conclusion.

In relation to amendment No. 2 [Franks-1], defining prescribed occupation further, we are not necessarily opposed to that. We are happy to consider all of those as the bill travels between the houses. We think it is important that this bill is passed in this chamber today and we are more than happy to look at those as the bill goes between the houses and whether there needs to be other references to how these things are defined, whether it is defined in this bill itself or by reference to a definition in another act.

We will not be voting for them today. We have not had a chance to consider them. There may be some work to do with definitions there, but we remain open to the possibility of supporting those when this comes up in the lower house, should it pass the chamber today, as I hope it will, and send a clear message to those workers that the bill seeks to protect.

Finally, the Hon. Tammy Franks had a question in relation to our bill and whether the definition of 'prescribed workplace' as hospital or private day procedure centre is wide enough to cover GP clinics and indeed COVID-19 clinics. I am happy to take that on notice. I am not sure is the answer to that. It was some time ago when we drafted this bill. I will seek some clarification.

These are issues that I think are properly and reasonably addressed as this bill travels between the houses. There may well be areas that, when it gets to the lower house, we need to expand. As I said in the second reading explanation when this bill was first introduced, we recognise, particularly from opposition, that there may be areas that we did not consider and that we have not covered the field as properly as it should have been and that is why it includes the ability to prescribe by regulation further workplaces, should that be necessary. As I said, as it travels between the houses, we certainly will look to see if they need any changes or any additional definitions or inclusions.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have a question of the opposition. With regard to the remarks in the second reading speech he covered amendment No. 2 [Maher-1] and noted that that addressed a similar provision with regard to the commencement of the act that, under the Greens' version, would have come into operation on 15 March 2020, should that Greens' amendment be successful.

The reason I have raised that issue both previously and in this particular amendment is because we have a government that is unwilling to enact this legislation, potentially. We have also seen governments of the other colour, where private members' bills have passed and eventually become acts, make the whole clock tick down the year or so that it takes for that bill to be enacted without provisions which I, as a member who has moved much private members' business, know that we need to ensure is enacted regardless of a recalcitrant government.

My question to the Labor opposition is: how will your amendment with regard to commencement ensure that should the Marshall government not wish to enact this legislation we are not waiting over a year for it to come into operation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her contribution and indicate that we are utterly and entirely convinced by her persuasive arguments in favour of it, and I can indicate, when we get to it, that the opposition will not be moving amendment 2 [Maher-1] and instead will be supporting the first amendment of the Hon. Tammy Franks. The honourable member is right, this government has an appalling track record of not—

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, this government has an appalling track record of not giving effect to the will of parliament.

Clause passed.

New clause 1A.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 2, after line 5—Insert:

1A—Commencement

This Act will be taken to have come into operation on 15 March 2020.

This inserts a commencement that the act will be taken to have come into operation on 15 March 2020. It was on Australia Day, or 26 January this year, that I think we had the first known case of COVID-19 in this country. Certainly, we saw state and territory governments then implement various phases of emergency management provisions, including declaring public health emergencies and so on. In South Australia the first of those declarations and recognition of cases was in train on 15 March. That is why I chose that date.

We could go back to the 26 January date if members want to go back to the first known case of coronavirus in this country, but it seemed to me not only recognition that this is a new disease that was not known prior to the commencement of that date but that it would also act as a disincentive for a recalcitrant government to stall the implementation of this legislation because it will always eventually go back to 15 March.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment and opposes the bill. I guess this presupposes that the legislation will pass in the other place.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am indicating support.

New clause inserted.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

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

Amendment No 1 [Maher–1]—

Page 2, line 11—Delete 'Section 9(1)(b)' and substitute 'Section 9(2)(b)'

This was a typographical error that has been picked up that refers to the wrong section, so I move that it refer to section 9(2)(b) rather than section 9(1)(b).

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 4.

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

Amendment No 3 [Maher–1]—

Page 3, line 7 [clause 4, inserted Schedule 3A, clause 1(2)]—After 'referred' insert 'to in'

Again, this is a typographical amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 3, after line 14 [clause 4, inserted Schedule 3A clause 1(5)]—After the definition of air passenger service work insert 'disability has the same meaning as in the Disability Inclusion Act 2018;'

I will speak to both amendments together; they are related. As I have already highlighted, they deal with the insertion of disability accommodation into the definition of a prescribed workplace. Disability is defined in amendment No. 1 [Bonaros-1] to have the same meaning as in the Disability Inclusion Act 2018, and amendment No. 2 [Bonaros-1] provides that a facility, not being a private residence, at which residential accommodation, respite care or other supports and services are provided to people with disability will be included as a prescribed workplace.

I am sure if we looked at this legislation long enough, there are other areas that we could potentially pick up. That has been dealt with by the inclusion of a provision in the bill which enables us to expand the scope by regulation, but I do think it is important, for obvious reasons, that the issue of disability accommodation be inserted at the outset as one of those prescribed workplaces.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Franks–1]—

Page 3, after line 36 [clause 4, inserted Schedule 3A, clause 1(5), definition of prescribed occupation]—Insert:

(ba) work in the health care sector; or

(bb) work in the hospitality industry; or

(bc) work in the retail industry; or

(bd) work in the freight transport industry; or

As I noted in the previous discussions in this place on this matter, essential workers, of course, we have known and taken to be those who work in health care, police forces and emergency services. I note that in the Labor opposition's bill they prescribed occupations as meaning work as a police officer or emergency services worker or passenger transport work or air passenger service work, and we have just included disability work as a prescribed workplace potentially, if the indication of the chamber is to my reading understood.

So if you are in the police force, an ambulance officer, in emergency service or in passenger transport work or air passenger service work, and now disability, you are covered, but if you work in the healthcare sector, hospitality, the retail industry or the freight transport industry you need to rely not on the prescribed occupation but on the prescribed workplace.

I note that a prescribed workplace with regard to health is a hospital or private day procedure centre, under the meaning of the Health Care Act, or a residential aged-care facility, or a pharmacy under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010, or a childcare centre or kindergarten under the Children's Services Act, or a school within the meaning of the Education and Early Childhood Services (Registration and Standards) Act 2011, or a supermarket, grocer, delicatessen or convenience store, or a petrol station, including any parts of a petrol station that consist of a shop or shops selling goods by retail, or any other workplace, to be left to the whims of a recalcitrant government to determine.

So that blue tape will not be cut, that presumptive COVID care will remain in the way of those who work in the healthcare sector more broadly and do not work in those particular prescribed workplaces. I have noted, for example, that the COVID clinics we have around the state are not necessarily all in hospitals or private day procedure centres. It concerns me that GPs, for example, treating patients, or, in particular, somebody taking the swabs for COVID, for coronavirus, are not protected specifically from the blue tape for that COVID care presumptive treatment under this particular opposition model.

Further, you might work in the hospitality industry. Unless that shop is in a petrol station, or perhaps there is a coffee shop in a supermarket, that would have you covered, but if you are just a retail industry worker you are not covered with that presumptive removal of the blue tape for this workers compensation treatment.

In terms of the freight transport industry, we know more than ever that freight transport has become incredibly important and an essential service. Those who have stepped up for us to keep us fed and who are now, with the restrictions and the road map to recovery being eased, at the front line—the people serving us our food, the people pouring that frothy in the front bar of the ALMA for the Premier—deserve the respect of the removal of the blue tape preventing this COVID care being afforded them because of their occupations.

I note that the opposition has said that it had not considered the situation of the GP. I find that quite concerning that they had not considered the very people who are taking the swabs, analysing. Is SA Pathology covered if it is not necessarily in a location defined here under the Health Care Act as one of the prescribed workplaces? I find it highly disturbing that we would move forward with the bill to afford the removal of the blue tape and a presumptive treatment instead of what are their workers compensation rights already to front-line healthcare workers just because they do not operate out of a hospital.

I find that extraordinary in this day and age, when we are setting up drive-by services—and of course we are providing them with PPE, but we know that that is not in any way a complete protection and we are putting them in danger to keep us safe and to keep us home.

While I heard the opposition say that we will sort this out between the houses, I remind the opposition of the numbers in this chamber being in support of the removal of this blue tape. However, there is no guarantee in the other place. The recalcitrant government has indicated, through the Leader of the Government in this place, that they do not support this COVID care being afforded to South Australians as it is in New South Wales, which passed with the support of the Berejiklian government of a Greens' amendment to legislation.

That legislation was supported by the New South Wales Labor opposition, One Nation, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party and all and sundry. There was cross-party support and consensus to remove the blue tape that made it harder for sick workers to receive the care they deserve when they are out there caring for others. I note that unless some miracle occurs and a member of the government crosses the floor in the other place, it means the end of the debate on this matter, to ensure the care of doctors, nurses and front-line health professionals, including those taking the swabs and those analysing the results of those swabs.

It is not guaranteed under the opposition bill and it will not be if the government continues with the form it has shown so far. With that, I urge the opposition to reconsider their position, to acknowledge that they have erred in the restrictions and prescription of the workplace rather than the occupation on this matter, and to support the Greens' amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We join the Labor Party in opposing this particular amendment. We oppose the bill and we oppose the amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I think the case for the amendment has been well made. As with disability, I think it is important that these are front and centre in terms of the legislation, and we will be supporting the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendment.

Ayes 4

Noes 16

Majority 12

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 4, after line 7 [clause 4, inserted Schedule 3A clause 1(5), definition of prescribed workplace]—After paragraph (b) insert:

(ba) a facility (not being a private residence) at which residential accommodation, respite care or other supports and services are provided to people with disability; or

I move this amendment for the reasons already outlined.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (18:12): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.