Bills

COVID-19 Emergency Response (Expiry and Rent) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 22 September 2020.)

Clause 1.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): We adjourned at clause 1 and we remain at clause 1. Are there any further questions? Minister, did you wish to make a statement?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would like to make some comments. Given the time since the committee last met, I have not been able to get formalised responses to all the questions taken on notice, but I might start with some that have already come through.

The first is in relation to the question: can the minister outline how many additional places South Australian medi-hotels will be providing in coming months, given the increased lifting of the cap? The answer I have been given is that the state government has recently advised the commonwealth that, in the coming weeks, we are seeking to increase our medi-hotel capacity to around 800 people per week. This will be broadly allocated over three cohorts and be flexed and reassessed based on local South Australian requirements.

The first cohort is international arrivals, which will be 600 people per week and which represents an increase of 360. Domestic arrivals from high-risk areas will be 100 people per week and capacity for community outbreaks will be 100 people per week. The increases in capacity will allow South Australia to quarantine 600 international arrivals per week, which more than doubles our current capacity.

I was asked a question in relation to officers using force to detain somebody and whether they would be afforded immunity. The advice I have been given is that the immunity provisions under either the South Australian Public Health Act or the Emergency Management Act would cover injury that arose in those circumstances.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Just to go to clause 3, which looks at the transition from emergency response to the Public Health Act, can I ask the minister why it has been necessary to do this?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): If I can just intervene, Hon. Mr Pangallo, your question is specific to clause 3. We are dealing with clause 1. You could ask a more general question now and we can deal with the specifics as we go through the clauses.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Specifically, why is it necessary for the government to transition from emergency response to the Public Health Act?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): I think that really is an issue for clause 3. You will have time to ask the question then.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Thank you, I will do that.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: we asked questions yesterday and we do not have most of the responses back, and I imagine it will take another 24 hours, potentially, to answer that question. If we wait until we get to clause 3, that could be tomorrow, in which case, are we going to sit on Friday?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): It may not be that we will not get to clause 3 tonight. I am happy for the Hon. Mr Pangallo to ask that question in a more general way if he can, but it was quite specific to the clause. Would you like to have another go, Hon. Mr Pangallo?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Thank you, Mr Acting Chair. Yesterday, I raised a number of issues regarding the powers of restraint and the minister could not answer or give me a detailed answer about who the types of persons would be who would be able to get these powers under this transition.

It has just not been explained who they would be. He used an example of a hospital guard, for instance, but would they be public servants, or council employees, or medical staff? There needs to be a proper explanation about who will be empowered to take this over once it shifts to the Public Health Act to do it. I point out that they will be given extraordinary powers I imagine, similar to what the police now have.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I understand it, the honourable member is referring to clause 3 of the bill. Clause 3 of the bill makes provision for the circumstances where we move from a major emergency to a public health emergency. It does not change the fundamental structure of authorised officers. What it primarily seeks to do is preserve the directions in place in the event that we move from a major emergency to a public health emergency.

I remind honourable members that at the beginning of the pandemic the government's response was, in the first instance, put in the context of a public health emergency. Very shortly after—my recollection is that it was a week later—the State Coordinator issued a major emergency declaration under the Emergency Management Act. So just as we had a transition into the government's response from a public health emergency to a major emergency, we may well have a transition out from a major emergency to a public health emergency.

My understanding is that the work that clause 3 has to do is to preserve the directions that have been put in place under the Emergency Management Act as the response leaves the major emergency declaration. As I said, my understanding is that the structure of authorised officers and people who assist them will continue with this act, as amended through the amendment bill, as it has up to this point.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Has the government been advised by or consulted with SA Police in relation to this transition?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: To be frank, under the Emergency Management Act the major emergency is declared by the State Coordinator, and the State Coordinator is also the Commissioner of Police. There are some provisions under the Emergency Management Act where the State Coordinator, who is also the Commissioner of Police, has to consult other people such as the Chief Public Health Officer, but the renewal of the major emergency every 28 days is done with the advice of the State Coordinator, who is the Commissioner of Police.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What the minister has not made clear here is that if there is a transition and then suddenly SA Health has authority and appoints authorised officers, will those officers be police specifically or only, or will there be others? Will there be other authorised officers? It is just not clear who will actually be empowered in this transition. Will it still be the police?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I make the point that this is about the preservation of directions. If we do move into a public health emergency—and, to be frank, I am not convinced that we will because this act seeks to ensure that the state is as nimble as it can be—if we choose to leave a major emergency and go into a public health emergency, the police may well still have a role.

I would like to stress that before we went into a major emergency we were in a public health emergency and it was not as though the police were not engaged. The police were already taking on tasks. In fact, I can specifically recall the police being involved in a response to a person who was suspected of having COVID-19, with concerns about compliance, and that was in February, well before we went into a major emergency, so the police do have an active role in relation to the public health incidents. They certainly did earlier this year and I would expect that they would when coming out of a major emergency into a public health incident.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I understand that the police will have a role. There is no question about that, but where this legislation is going there will be others who will have a similar role to that of police. What I was suggesting earlier was: has the government consulted with the police, particularly in view of the powers that are going to be bestowed on these so-called authorised officers?

We are talking about powers of restraint, using reasonable force and, under the current Emergency Management Act, they would be able to enter and break into any building, structure or vehicle. I know that the police are going to be involved, but what you are suggesting here is that SA Health can also appoint other authorised officers to do the work that police are currently doing and are empowered to do. Who are these people going to be?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The honourable member is fundamentally mischaracterising the role of authorised officers. Authorised officers are in the Public Health Act and always have been. Those functions existed under the Public Health Act before the COVID bill. The COVID bill strengthens the powers of authorised officers and also allows them to be supported by other people. There is no fundamental change in that structure.

My advice confirms that there is no fundamental change in the powers of police, authorised officers and other people who work with them. Clause 3 in particular is about making sure that any transition to a public health emergency is smooth.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: So what the minister is saying is that those current authorised officers may be with SA Health. I will point out to the minister that yesterday he gave me an example of a security guard at one of the hospitals. Can the minister confirm then that there are authorised persons (public servants, citizens who work for SA Health) who have the same powers that police have in terms of restraint, using reasonable force, entering property—all the powers that are listed in the Emergency Management Act?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Authorised officers, under the Public Health Act, as I said earlier, predate the pandemic; it is part of the Public Health Act. In the context of a major emergency, police have the primary responsibility for restraint and detention, but the Public Health Act does have capacity in that regard; it did before this pandemic. This act does not change that fundamental dynamic.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Under this transition, does that then mean that those officials, other than the police, will have the same powers as police? That is all I am asking.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: To make it clear, these powers are under the Emergency Management Act and the Public Health Act. The powers of police under the Police Act and other state statutes are not afforded to these people. That is one of the reasons, for example, that South Australia moved to a major emergency, particularly when we were going towards border controls.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: But why did the minister say that these people would have the power of restraint and using reasonable force?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The honourable member yesterday asked me a question about the definition of reasonable force. I responded to that. I made no assertion about who was going to use what powers.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I beg to differ, minister, because I asked you for a specific example and you said a hospital guard. Then I said, 'Well, what are you going to do? How are they going to be restrained? Do you have a padded cell at the hospital?', which you could not answer yesterday. I will put it this way: have police spoken with the government about their current role in administering this act and expressed a view that perhaps others need to be involved in the enforcement of these laws, because perhaps their resources are being tied up and they are being restricted in what their core duty is, which is fighting crime?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am not aware of any request from police to change powers to save on their resources, as the honourable member suggests. As I said, authorised officers are a well-established element of the Public Health Act, and the Emergency Management Act structure is also maintained.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I was interested in pursuing the use of the detention powers, and I was after the number and duration of the orders of detention. I know there has been mention of some cases, but I am after the number of orders, the duration, the circumstances or conditions of that detention, the reasons given to justify the detention and the support provided to anyone who was subject to those detention powers, including what legal representation access they were afforded.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Clearly, I will need to take those questions on notice.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am interested also in the medi-hotels and what training has been provided to security guards.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: We are happy to move on to questions on medi-hotels. Did you say you wanted to ask about security guards and their training in medi-hotels?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the security officers would be licensed with a security agent's licence and therefore the obligation is there. In terms of deployment at a medi-hotel, they would receive training in relation to PPE from Infection Control within SA Health. I am advised they also receive restraint training.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Who provides that training, how long is that training undertaken for and is it paid or unpaid training?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the restraint training is provided by a private training organisation called CPI. It is delivered in two modules, primarily online, and we understand it would take about two weeks for a person to undergo that training.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: And the PPE training?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the infection control training by SA Health takes about an hour and there is refresher training provided. I am advised that before the one-hour session they engage in a pre-learning package.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Paid or unpaid was part of the original question.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that it is paid.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: With the restraint training that is some two weeks in duration, did all security guards undertake that training prior to working in our medi-hotels or as they went?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I apologise, there was a misunderstanding. The security agent's licence comments and PPE training relate to the security officers in medi-hotels. The restraint training is limited to only security officers who work in hospitals.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will stick with the medi-hotels for the moment. There is infectious control training provided, paid, for security guards who are appropriately licensed in all cases, I take it. Please correct me if I am making any incorrect assumptions. In terms of the situation that has occurred, that has been made public today, where a security guard was not wearing the appropriate PPE while a swabbing of at least two people was undertaken within the medi-hotel, what action was taken and was the security guard appropriately trained prior to that incident? Has that security guard received counselling? Are they still in the job? What have been the implications there?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am afraid that the officer with me tonight is not aware of the details of the case, and I am only aware of the details that Professor Spurrier made public earlier this afternoon. In terms of the particular person, my understanding is that they are now in a medi-hotel themselves.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Will they be required to pay for that medi-hotel?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My understanding is no.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Do they have close contacts, such as family and so on, who are also now required to be either isolated, quarantined or in a medi-hotel?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not have those details but I will certainly get them for the honourable member.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Returning to the restraint training, does that include chemical restraints or is it simply physical? What is the nature of the physical restraints that the training is provided for?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think it is important to stress that restraint training is a standard feature of training security officers who work in hospitals. The training is particularly focused on minimising the use of restraint. It is about de-escalation. It is really important in the healthcare environment that people feel that hospitals are a safe environment and that, no matter what issues they present with, they will be supported to get care.

Many patients are agitated. To be frank, many other patients are disrespectful to health professionals. Both clinical staff and security officers will confront a wide range of circumstances. The restraint training in SA Health hospitals is primarily around the MAPA program. MAPA stands for the management of actual or potential aggression, and it is substantially focused on de-escalating so that we can minimise the use of any other form of restraint.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Chair, I did indicate to the Treasurer that my other questions were around COVID safe plans, COVID management plans and COVID marshals and exemptions as well. I just make that clear. I assume they are not in your jurisdiction, although I stand to be corrected.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Could I suggest that this might be a good time to adjourn and then we can come back to those issues after dinner.

Sitting suspended from 18:01 to 19:45.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As so often I am forced to do, I thank the council for its patience. I would also like to thank the Hon. Frank Pangallo for his patience. He took the opportunity in the dinner break to clarify with me his particular concerns, so I hope that my formulation of the questions and the answers can mean that we are all better informed. I will ask a series of questions and offer the council an answer and hopefully we can then discuss any implications of it.

The first question is: on what basis would we move from a major emergency to a public health emergency? It is the determination of the State Coordinator whether to declare an emergency under the Emergency Management Act and to revoke that declaration. It is a determination of the Chief Executive of the Department for Health and Wellbeing, with the approval of the minister, whether to declare a public health emergency or revoke a declaration. The nature and extent of the situation and the necessary powers required to address it determine whether the South Australian Public Health Act or the Emergency Management Act is the most appropriate statutory framework to address the situation.

The next question: what is the difference between a public health emergency and an emergency under the Emergency Management Act? A public health emergency relates to the spread or potential spread of human disease whereas an emergency under the Emergency Management Act may relate to a range of causes, including human disease. Largely, the scale of the emergency and the powers and resources required to address it determine whether an emergency is declared under one act or the other.

Clause 3 of the COVID-19 Emergency Response (Expiry and Rent) Amendment Bill 2020 preserves the COVID-19 related powers in the context of a continuing public health emergency. It is a temporary measure to provide appropriate cautious protections while the public health incident is continuing. The effect of clause 3 is to preserve the provisions of the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act 2020 in the event that the current COVID-19 emergency is transitioned from a major emergency under the Emergency Management Act to a public health emergency under the South Australian Public Health Act 2011, what I will from now on call the Public Health Act.

Without clause 3, if we were to transition from a major emergency under the Emergency Management Act and move to a public health emergency under the Public Health Act, the range of benefits under this act would lapse. These benefits include matters such as rent relief, electronic payments and electronic meetings. The temporary enhancements to the Public Health Act would also be lost.

The power to detain under the Public Health Act was extended in March this year in the South Australian Public Health (Controlled Notifiable Conditions) Amendment Bill. Those changes were permanent—in other words, were direct amendments to the principal act—and will continue whether this bill is passed or not. That bill, being the South Australian Public Health (Controlled Notifiable Conditions) Amendment Bill, provided the Chief Public Health Officer with greater capacity to rapidly respond to and contain public health risks related to infectious diseases while maintaining appropriate protections for individuals such as case reviews and the capacity to appeal to the courts.

The amendments allowed a more timely and rapid response for the Chief Public Health Officer to detain a person engaging in conduct that presents a risk to the public and also allowed detention in urgent circumstances where there had been no prior breaches or noncompliance or the service of a direction. Of particular significance at the time, the bill amended section 77(1) of the South Australian Public Health Act to provide:

(1) The Chief Public Health Officer may make an order under this section if—

(a) the Chief Public Health Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person…

(iii) could have been exposed to a controlled notifiable condition…

That was an amendment to the power to detain, and it changed the threshold at which the Chief Public Health Officer was able to make an order.

My recollection, as a person who was involved at the time, is that the circumstance that was particularly exercising the minds of the government was a situation like the Diamond Princess, where it may not be possible to show that a person had been exposed to a controlled notifiable condition but the Chief Public Health Officer certainly had reasonable grounds to believe that a person could have been exposed to a controlled notifiable condition.

So when we are in a pandemic, trying to fly a plane while we are building it, I believe that was a very responsible amendment, particularly when here today, six months later, we have only had four deaths in South Australia, two of which were overseas acquired. So I believe that the parliament acted very responsibly in extending the powers of the Chief Public Health Officer to detain. Those powers have served us well.

The power of the Chief Public Health Officer in relation to detention was further enhanced by the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, which this bill seeks to extend. That act amended section 77 of the Public Health Act to allow the Chief Public Health Officer or an authorised officer to:

restrain the person and otherwise use force in relation to the person as reasonably required in the circumstances…

The section as amended goes on to provide that 'the CPHO or an authorised person may…be assisted by such persons as may be necessary or desirable in the circumstances'. That change was to expressly provide that the Chief Public Health Officer or their delegate could use reasonable force to enforce detention orders made under the act. The bill before the council does not introduce the power to use reasonable force; it merely preserves it.

Going to the next question: does this amendment bill fundamentally change the powers that public health officers already have? I would say no. The provisions under the South Australian Public Health (Controlled Notifiable Conditions) Amendment Act 2020 are ongoing amendments to the Public Health Act. The provisions under the COVID bill are merely preserved.

The next question: what exact provisions of the COVID act would be used in a public health emergency? All provisions provide the capability to quickly and effectively respond to public health risks. The provisions of the COVID act that amend the Public Health Act would be of particular use in the event of a declaration of a public health emergency.

To restate a question that I have already tried to answer: does this bill expand the power of public health officials? This bill does not expand the powers of the CPHO or authorised officers. I would reiterate again that under section 47 of the South Australian Public Health Act 2011, authorised officers have and have had a range of powers to enter and seize. The powers of restraint and detention are also longstanding. What we have done in both the South Australian Public Health (Controlled Notifiable Conditions) Amendment Act and in this bill is to finetune and increase the capacity for public health officers to use them.

Question: will these powers be used by officials other than police? The answer is the powers under the Public Health Act will be used by authorised officers. Under the Public Health Act, authorised officers include officers of the Department for Health and Wellbeing and also officers of local government authorities.

The next question is: why does the government seek to give powers that are predominantly for law and order to respond to what is a health issue? I put it to the house that it is well established in public health practice that public health officers may from time to time need to restrain or detain a person with an infectious condition or who could have been exposed to an infectious condition.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I wish to thank the minister for the responses.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Are there any other questions on clause 1?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I do not have questions of this minister. My understanding is that we were going to put most of the questions at clause 1 in relation to other aspects of the bill as well. I had a couple of questions in relation to the planning aspects and I understood an adviser was around for that.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The Hon. Mr Parnell, I understand you have some questions.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I have a couple of questions, and would like to start by continuing with the very final question of last night. The minister answered it, but I was going to tease it out a little bit more. The question was in relation to the ability of government boards to conduct their business by Zoom or electronically rather than face-to-face.

My question, which the minister answered but which I will explore little bit further, was that when it comes to the law—and I am paraphrasing here—basically you can pass a law that says 'Zoom meetings are now allowed', and it is up to each of the bodies as to how they take advantage of that or not, as it suits them. Each individual body would decide for themselves.

The question I want to have one more go at is regarding the issue of guidelines. It strikes me that, yes, legally it is probably right to say that the power exists to have remote meetings, and it is up to each agency to decide. My question is about whether any guidance could be given.

Often the process used in government is circulars issued by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. It was put to me that this topic, whether or not to meet face-to-face or to meet remotely, might be a suitable subject for such a circular or for some other form of advice. Whilst that would not change the law, it would give those bodies some indication of what policies they should apply in deciding whether they were comfortable going back to face-to-face or whether they wanted to do things remotely.

I think we have all experienced the fact that there are some bodies who so like not having to come into the meeting room that they would love Zoom meetings to be continued in perpetuity. In fact, the advice we got from the Attorney-General in relation to parliamentary committees was that—and again I am paraphrasing—'This has worked really well, we might make this permanent.'

I understand that the idea there was that country members, in particular, who were on a committee could participate from the country rather than having to come back to Adelaide for the meetings. So I sort of get that. My question is whether the minister had any further advice as to whether it was possible or feasible for advice to be provided to all these government boards, committees and agencies as to how they should appropriately handle the powers they have been given and which are, by this bill, to be extended.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In response to that specific question, as to whether there could be a DPC circular or possibly a Commissioner for Public Sector Employment determination, I am just not sure—it certainly would not be a Treasurer's Instruction, because they seem to be instruments of guidance that sometimes apply, although Treasurer's Instructions actually have the force of law.

I guess my 'off the top of my head' response is that I cannot imagine it would be impossible for one of those other instruments to be used. It is not something the government has initiated in its arsenal in the first few months. I am happy to take up the issue with the Attorney-General, who has carriage of this bill. In terms of the DPC circular, that is actually an issue for the Premier.

My initial response—particularly given the example the honourable member has framed; I think it was the State Planning Commission or a planning body—and without having had the chance to consider it, is that there are any number of different government boards and agencies. The SA Water board, for example, clearly does not take public evidence or whatever else it is. So how would you actually craft a general guideline?

I suspect the State Planning Commission might be in the minority of the government boards and committees because, based what the member has said, it has had a practice, not required by law, to allow people to attend or whatever it is. Most of our boards and committees do not have an audience, they are a board or a committee of a governance nature, etc. So how would you actually craft something which might apply to the specific bodies the honourable member has phrased when, in the main, the sort of body that might be needing to get guidance would be bodies that do not normally operate in that fashion?

Nothing is beyond the wit and wisdom of members of the legal fraternity, so I am sure that if enough time was devoted to it there might be guidance. Whether it was the sort of guidance that supported the view the honourable member has, and those whom he represents, as opposed to the view that either the body had or, indeed, the government might have, I could not venture an opinion at this stage. I think the honest answer to the question is, yes, it is probably possible to utilise a guidance through a DPC circular or something like that in relation to it.

I am happy to raise the issue but I do not want to raise the member's expectation that on behalf of the government I have given a commitment this evening to do it. I am prepared to have the issue raised and it may well be that it is the sort of issue that if the Minister for Planning—in the planning area—happened to have a view that was not dissimilar to the member's, it might not need to be a DPC circular, it might need to be a view that she expresses in terms of the way she thinks they should operate.

I do not know what the degree of independence of the State Planning Commission is from the Minister for Planning. I do not want to suggest that it is entirely inappropriate for the minister to involve herself in this particular matter or not, this is not an area that I am very familiar with. I am happy to give a general response in that I will take the issue up with the Deputy Premier and the Premier, who would be the two ministers engaged, but I hasten to say that I am sure the member will not take it as a commitment from the government to do something other than at least consider the issue.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the Treasurer for the answer and I absolutely accept the terms on which he has given it. I guess the context will not necessarily be lost on people but having spent the best part of the last 20 or something years trying to increase the public accountability of some of these agencies, particularly in the planning field, and having secured the ability for people to turn up at meetings and for journalists to come along to State Commission Assessment Panel meetings, only to find them cruelly undone by a virus. My hope is that they will get back to not just business as usual but to an even more open regime later. However, I will leave that matter there. I am satisfied with those answers.

The specific amendments that were made in relation to planning applications, if you like, or development applications, consisted of two main issues: one was that certain types of development have to be referred to local councils, and the local councils were given less time to comment—that was one change. The other one was that the types of developments that have to be referred to local councils were reduced by increasing the dollar threshold that triggered consultation.

The types of developments we are talking about are what are known colloquially—not accurately but colloquially—as section 49 Crown developments. Historically, these have been government projects but in more recent years a lot of private enterprises are taking advantage of the government process. They are, as I have described it, hanging on to the skirts of government to try to get a faster track, more certain approval process.

That is background to the information that we were provided with when we asked the question, 'How have these laws been used?' and the government has provided us with a chart which suggests that there were 75 development applications from 15 May to 8 September that—the words they use are 'benefitted from' these changes. In other words, the consultation period was shorter and there were less applications referred to local councils.

My first question is: of the 75 applications, what proportion of them were actually government projects and what proportion were actually private sector projects that were caught within the definition of section 45 and processed as if they were government projects?

To give another example, a classic example would be a new gas-fired power station. Because it is regarded as infrastructure, because the government used to build all the infrastructure, then private gas-fired power stations are processed under section 49. I just want to know, of those 75 how many were government projects and how many were private sector projects?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The honest answer is we have no flipping idea. We are very happy to take the question on notice and provide the member with a reply. The best initial response, I suspect, from the way the member has framed it, is it is likely the majority are what you would call government projects. Clearly, you are interested in the number that are in the alternate category, so I am happy to take it on notice and advise the member as expeditiously as I can. It is a figure we will be able to get, but we do not actually have that with us.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister. I am happy for him to take that question on notice. It need not stand in the way of this bill. The second related question is on the effect of the COVID law, which was to reduce from four weeks—I think it was 28 days—down to 15 days the time that councils had to make comment on these applications. My question is: given that shorter time period, was there an increase in the number of councils that had nothing to say in that they did not reply in time? Generally, with a time limit, if you do not have your say by the due date, you are deemed to not have anything to say. How many situations were there where councils just could not achieve the new, shorter time frame and therefore said nothing?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, we do not have the information with us. We are happy to take it on notice. However, at least some initial anecdotal information is that officers are unaware of councils or others who have complained afterwards, saying but through lack of time they would have. At least anecdotally there is no evidence of people saying, 'Hey, if we had have had the normal time. We are very grumpy,' etc. That does not mean that there are not people who are disgruntled and just accepted it. We can get the number for the member, and I am happy to take that on notice for him.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The other statistic that was provided to us was the number of development applications that previously would have been referred because they were worth $4 million. When the referral amount was raised to $10 million, there were a number of projects that would have been referred under the old system but are no longer referred under the new system. I think that is my understanding of it.

There were two projects that were identified. One was the Women's Memorial Playing Fields upgrade worth $7.265 million. The other was the redevelopment of the Playford International College in Elizabeth. One is a school and one is the women's playing fields. I just wanted to put that on the record as a strong supporter of the Women's Memorial Playing Fields. I am very glad that they have received the money that Mr Parker and others have been fighting for for many years.

It is an area that I know well. It is in my neighbourhood, and I am very glad that it is going through. I am not saying I am necessarily happy that it did not go through the same consultation it would have normally gone through. I think one can support a project and support community engagement consistently. I just make that as an observation.

The final question I have is: in the 14 pages of information the Attorney-General's office has provided, there are some annotations in relation to some sections which, if I paraphrase, say, 'This is working really well. We might keep it going after COVID.' They have said that in quite a few places. They have not said it in relation to these changes under the Development Act or the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act, so can the minister give an assurance that there is no current intention—I think that is probably the strongest I can put it—that this relaxation of public consultation will continue beyond COVID?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that there is no intention to continue post-COVID. I have not read all of the 15 pages of answers that have been sent to the members, but, as the member has characterised them, what I can provide by way of context is that the national cabinet, in particular driven by the federal government, has asked of all jurisdictions—and this has come through CFFR as well, which is treasurers—what things have we learned and adapted to in COVID that would make sense to continue after COVID?

All jurisdictions have been asked, particularly in the broad context of reducing red tape and deregulation, by the national cabinet to look at the changes that have occurred during COVID and which of those would make sense to continue. I suspect that is why some of the phrases to some of the changes have indicated along the terms the member has indicated; that is, this has gone so well we may well continue.

There have been no final decisions in these areas because we have just been asked as jurisdictions to consider what has worked and what has not worked, and we might all have different views as to what has worked, depending on your perspective. That would be at least the context within which you may have received commentary from officers, which has indicated that this is potentially in that particular category.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I do not have any further questions in relation to the issue. I will just make the observation that the assumption in this particular area seems to be that anything that allows a development to be approved faster must, by definition, be good. That is why you reduce time frames: it makes things happen faster.

My agenda has always been for things to be done properly, which sometimes takes time. So, nervousness should be understandable in that, if it works really well, you reduce consultation with local councils or reduce consultation with the community or you do not have pesky journalists turning up to meetings. If that is all going swimmingly from an agency's point of view, you can understand the temptation that might be there to see whether we can keep some of that going permanently. I accept the minister's answer, and I have no further questions on this topic.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Whilst we are changing officers, as the member knows planning legislation is not my forte, but being a member of CFFR has meant that the issue of planning reform has certainly actively been discussed at the national level as a result of the national cabinet. I alert the honourable member—I am sure his officers probably already are—to the fact that the Productivity Commission has done considerable work in terms of planning reform and has now produced, and I think released only last week, an analysis they did on commercial land zoning reform as already evidenced and practised by the Labor government in Victoria, which they are holding up as a role model of good planning reform.

The Productivity Commission are looking at other planning reforms in other jurisdictions. Their viewpoint might not be the perspective the honourable member is viewing it from, and I accept that, but from the viewpoint of productivity reform the Productivity Commission—and this is its role—has been looking at what it deems to be good practice or best practice and producing cases for public exposition and discussion. Each of the jurisdictions are being asked to consider whether or not they measure up to what the Productivity Commission has said is best practice.

I accept that all jurisdictions might not have the same perspective as the Productivity Commission, but it is going to be an active part of debate in the coming months and years because, post-COVID, all the debate will be about productivity improvements, how we can generate jobs growth and economic growth to recover from the impacts of the global pandemic. The Productivity Commission and productivity reform will be an active part of that public debate. Planning reform is a part of that area.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: By leave, I move my amendments in an amended form:

Amendment No 1 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 2, line 23 [clause 4(2), inserted paragraph (b)]—Delete '28 March 2021' and substitute:

3 January 2021

Amendment No 2 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 3, line 3 [clause 4(3)]—Delete '28 March 2021' and substitute:

3 January 2021

As I indicated in my speech—and I will not go into it at great length again—South Australia has done a fantastic job, as we know, and all credit goes to the Marshall government and also the state Transition Committee and the State Coordinator in essentially keeping South Australia COVID free from transmissions for several months.

As we have indicated and as I have pointed out, we have had only four deaths and something like just over 460 active cases reported in South Australia. We have had a great number, almost the same number, that have recovered. South Australia really leads the world, in some regard, in the way it has managed this pandemic. We still find ourselves in a situation, of course, where borders are closed to Victoria; good news that the people from New South Wales are able to come here.

As I indicated, South Australia has done a tremendous job, to the point where we have had only two active cases reported, I believe, today, and they were from travellers and they are in quarantine. We have managed to stay on top of this pandemic for the best part of six months. All due credit to the government, the agencies that have been involved and, of course, the people of South Australia for following the precautions, the conditions and the restrictions that have been imposed upon them. They were quite harsh, in some cases, at the beginning of the pandemic, but they were quite necessary at the time, and it has resulted in the position that the state now finds itself.

So here we are today, 23 September 2020, six months after the legislation passed. The initial understanding was that it would only be six months, but of course we were not to know that this pandemic was to keep lingering and reach the extent that it has globally and certainly in Australia, where it is at the moment, particularly in Victoria. However, South Australia remains in a very good position. I think it is quite fair to say that, despite those two cases we have in quarantine now, we are virtually COVID free, and South Australians are probably expecting that we would make a transition to easing restrictions even further by the time Christmas comes around.

Because we are in such a good position, the feeling is that we need not extend it a further six months. I do not think that is necessary. We can extend it a further three months; there is that provision for the government to roll things over every 28 days. I just think that six months is far too long. Three months is adequate. We can come back and do this again in the last sitting week in December if we need to extend it for another three months, six months, or whatever, if things deteriorate. My expectation is that things will actually get better.

I am an optimist, and I think that with the way that South Australians have handled this and the way we have travelled that things are continually improving. It would be unfortunate for many businesses that are currently still holding out for restrictions to be eased even further. They want some decisions that are going to be made soon because when JobKeeper runs out we could find ourselves with a tsunami of economic problems, particularly for those with a small business.

That is part of the reason why I have actually changed the amendment to 3 January because that aligns with the federal JobKeeper date. Three months I think is adequate notice at this point. We can come back and extend it if we need to. My firm belief is that we are travelling quite well at the moment. We do not need to go further than need be. Many businesses have contacted my office who have been concerned, particularly with residential tenancy leases and commercial leases, that it is putting a huge burden on some of the smaller landlords and investors. I know that probably some members in this room may not have much sympathy for investors and landlords, but they are suffering as much as anybody else in the community.

As a result of that, businesses are also suffering because of the current restrictions that are in place and hoping that they will be lifted—places like cafes and hotels, wedding function centres, people attending funerals, weddings and whatever. It has had quite a considerable effect on South Australians, and I point out that it has even affected one of my own staff members. My Chief of Staff, Sean Whittington, had planned to marry earlier in the year but had to put that off. He has now opted to get married early next month because they are so unsure when these restrictions would be eased enough to have a greater number of people than are allowed. That is just a small indication of the impact it has had on people.

I have missed several funerals this year of close family and friends because it was difficult because of the restrictions that were imposed. We had a situation earlier in the year, and I advocated strongly for restrictions to be lifted on visitations to aged-care homes. I made representations to the federal minister and also to the Premier, and I am glad that the Premier and the federal minister took notice of that.

In short, I do not think that we need to extend it any further than 3 January at this point. We can always come back and address it and extend it if need be. I think it is time that we started to look at bringing the government back in control of the situation. Since March or April this year, much of the heavy work has been taken up by the Transition Committee, the State Coordinator and the Chief Medical Officer, who have done a fantastic job, but we are getting to a situation now where we are well on top of this pandemic in South Australia.

We will continue to do that because of what we have learned from it and from what the various agencies have learned from it. We have effectively managed to suppress it, and I think it is high time that we start to ease the government back into doing what it was elected to do: govern and run control of the state, rather than leave it to the others who were put in because of the emergency measures.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: To the experts.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, the government of the day. I would not go as far as calling them experts at this point. I would certainly call SA Health, the Chief Medical Officer and Professor Spurrier experts. They are experts—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: They are experts, and so let's back them.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Definitely experts. But as I said, it is time that perhaps we started to ease the government back into control of the situation. I think it would be appropriate that this be done sooner rather than later. I think extending it another six months to 28 March is far too long. That is a year, and I think even South Australians would expect that their government would be able to resume control of the situation.

With that, I ask that honourable members support my amendment. As I indicated, it is certainly quite easy to come back in December, in the final week of sitting, to adjust that date. I think it is only appropriate that we do that.

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

Amendment No 1 [Franks–2]—

Page 2, line 23 [clause 4(2), inserted paragraph (b)]—Delete '28 March' and substitute:

6 February

This at clause 4(2) deletes '28 March' and substitutes '6 February'. Originally, I had moved for this bill to expire in a four-month period. This takes it a little further than 31 January to 6 February, which will be a Saturday, I believe the end of the first sitting week of the 2020-21 sitting schedule. This gives certainty for Christmas, particularly for people like renters and people who are most vulnerable in this situation. It also recognises the very hardworking staff, many of whom we have kept here this evening to answer our questions, who do deserve some level of respite. It also is enough time to allow for conversations to be held in the coming few months, knowing that we are well away from a date when we will have moved beyond the need for these extraordinary powers.

When we debated the bill back in March this year, I do not think that any of us thought that at six months we would not be looking back and reviewing what had happened rather than looking forward to extending the powers. I did not think that we would be here tonight extending for potentially a further six months these extraordinary powers given the nature of the pandemic; however, we know that it is for at least another six months and possibly longer.

Going forward, we can learn those lessons, as the Minister for Health and Wellbeing said of constructing the plane while trying to fly the plane, and perhaps build a better plane for the parliament in 2021.

I have noted some concerns about transparency of information, about appropriate procedures and processes that by their very nature had to be done in an ad hoc manner, but we can do better going into the future with these extraordinary powers still being in place. The date of 6 February allows us to have those discussions in a collegiate and cross-party way prior to starting the new year afresh, with a better structure in place for those oversights and protections.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank honourable members for their smorgasbord of options in relation to the extension of the powers under the act. It remains the government's position that our preference would have been 31 March, as outlined in the act, but I am ever the pragmatist and I accept the fact that there is not support in this chamber for 31 March. So I indicate that the government will support the amendment moved by the Hon. Ms Franks for 6 February and for similar reasons, although I will add to them albeit briefly.

The alternative option of 3 January has significant problems. We are nearing the very end of September and the expiration of these particular provisions are in a few days' time—the middle of next week. If you are going to extend the powers, it makes good sense that you wait until the very end to decide whether or not you need to extend the powers.

If the cut-off date was to be 3 January and if we were to suffer a second wave—and we certainly hope not as we ease restrictions; as we go through our first period of pre-Christmas festivities, we hope we do not see complacency and the like—through the middle or the latter part of December, we would be confronted with the very unfortunate set of circumstances where sometime between Christmas and New Year's Day we would have to reconvene the parliament for a decision on whether or not to extend the 3 January date for the extraordinary powers.

As the Hon. Ms Franks alluded to, after this year—which has been extraordinarily difficult for a whole range of people in the community, in the parliament and everywhere—I think people will need some respite during the traditional holiday season. People will want to get together with their family and maybe be able to travel or at least plan to travel, whether it be within the state or interstate. To have a set of circumstances where those sorts of family events might sadly have to be curtailed because the parliament will have to be recalled between Christmas and New Year to make that decision is unacceptable.

Sure, the honourable member has indicated that in the early part of December we could make the decision, almost four weeks before the end of the period, but we may well not be in the position of knowing whether or not we are in the throes of a second wave in that particular period. There might be some warning signs. We might be hopeful of quarantining, as we have successfully done with the Barossa and Thebarton College and the like. We hope that if there are outbreaks, we are able to quarantine and cut off the spread of the virus through the techniques that have been used.

So for the reasons the Hon. Ms Franks has given, 6 February is a reasonable compromise. It is not what the government would have wished but at least we could reconvene in that last week of January, when most of us will have concluded any break we are going to have, and be well and truly back at work. We would be in a position of making a decision, if we had to, about the extension of the power. The Hon. Ms Franks' amendment is a sensible compromise. In the interests of trying to get this bill through both houses in the next 24 hours, because we have to pass the bill by tomorrow, the government has changed its position and has indicated its willingness to support this amendment in the chamber tonight.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I will clearly be supporting my colleague's amendment, but just a question of the Treasurer on this. One of the things I have been critical of over many years is that the crossbench is usually the very last to know what the sitting calendar will be for the forthcoming year. So looking at the dates, I see that the Australia Day holiday is on Tuesday 26 January—it is on 26 January most years, I recall—which means that the Monday is probably a long weekend. School goes back on the Wednesday, and the following week includes Tuesday the 2^nd through to Thursday the 4^th. Is the minister able to give us any indication on whether the sitting week of Tuesday 2 February to Thursday 4 February is likely to be on the next schedule, if in fact it may have already been written? Do we know we are coming back in that week? That is my question.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If the member promises not to reveal it to anyone other than the 20 of us in this chamber and the 15 people who are listening or watching—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, the Hon. Mr Parnell has a huge listening audience. The recommended program has not gone to cabinet.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order to my right! I am trying to listen to the Treasurer and he is telling us about next year's sitting program. You might want to listen.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, this is a secret discussion, secret members' business. It is highly likely, I am advised, that that will be a sitting week, but the decision has not been taken. Even if the decision was not to sit in that particular sitting week, in the event that it was not, then we would have to use the extraordinary powers that the Speaker has to reconvene, as we would have had to have done between Christmas and new year because we are clearly not sitting during that particular period if it was to be 3 January. As long as my secret is safe with you, it is highly likely that we will be sitting in that particular week the member has referred to, the week being the 2^nd to the 4^th.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might just indicate, as I indicated in my second reading contribution, we were predisposed to supporting an amendment to reduce the time frame. As I said, in all our briefings with the government, when we asked, 'What is the reason it could not be three months?' we were not given reason at all that it could not be three months, let alone four months or longer. Given that we are sitting in the first week of December, whether it is three months or four months or 4½ months or five months, if we are to go beyond that, we can remedy the need to extend it in that first week in December, so I will indicate the opposition will be supporting the Hon. Frank Pangallo's amendment—the amendment in the amended form—to go to 3 January.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will be supporting the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendment.

The CHAIR: If the committee would just have a little bit of patience as my advisers work through the changes that we have here. The way we are going to proceed is that the first question will be that the words '28 March', as proposed to be struck out by the Hon. F. Pangallo and the Hon. T.A. Franks, stand as printed.

Question negatived.

The CHAIR: The question I now put to the committee is that the words '6 February', proposed to be inserted by the Hon. T.A. Franks, be so inserted.

The committee divided on the question:

Ayes 10

Noes 9

Majority 1

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

Amendment No 2 [Franks–2]—

Page 3, line 3 [clause 4(3)]—Delete '28 March' and substitute:

6 February

Again, this is consequential on the previous amendment, which deletes 28 March and substitutes it with 6 February.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clause (5) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (20:53): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.