Bills

COVID-19 Emergency Response (Expiry) (No 2) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 May 2021.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (15:19): I rise to speak on this bill and indicate that the opposition will be supporting this bill. The bill seeks to extend temporary emergency powers, particularly those related to directions given by the State Coordinator, from 31 May until 17 September. It is important to note that the opposition has supported every one of the government's COVID-19 legislation initiatives, but it is true that it is peculiar that this bill is before us to once again extend the time for the operation of the emergency response bill.

In January this year, the Premier was quoted as saying the government had been working on longer term reforms to the Emergency Management Act since November last year. It had been widely acknowledged by the government that the current piecemeal changes were not fit for purpose for the times that we find ourselves in. On 4 January this year, InDaily reported:

As the state enters its tenth month under an emergency declaration—and Marshall enters his final full calendar year before kicking off his re-election campaign—the Premier said authorities were considering how to return the state’s emergency decision-making to cabinet government.

'We’re looking at that at the moment,' he said.

'We were looking at it very carefully in November—before the Parafield cluster.'

The State Coordinator publicly addressed this issue when he spoke to journalists. When he was asked about when he may step aside from the role of State Coordinator he said, and I quote:

We are providing advice to the government in relation to what those options might be that see the requirement for a major emergency declaration to be revoked. At this point in time, this is the only mechanism…that gives us the ability to require people to participate in QR code activity, to have COVID marshals onboard, to have one person per two square metres. All of those things are contingent upon some ability to require people to do that. That's the major emergency declaration. The government are having a look at how we can replace that with another mechanism that provides that same level of accountability to the community. Until that's developed, then I will continue to operate as the State Coordinator.

He went on to say:

The major emergency declaration is the only mechanism under the Emergency Management Act that allows this to occur. The replacement for this would be a specific piece of legislation that provides a baseline level of restrictions for community activities and gives us the ability to introduce restrictions for people coming into South Australia so we can manage risk.

When asked whether he would consider State Coordinator in such legislation, the State Coordinator responded, 'My role as State Coordinator would cease.'

Since November last year, when the Premier outlined that they had been looking at a different regime, and certainly since January this year, when the Premier made the comments outlined to InDaily, the public have been led to believe that the government wants to return to normal cabinet government, where elected officials make decisions and are accountable for them. There has been much said and debated about a divided Liberal party room in relation to the ongoing continuation of emergency management as we know it today.

I will ask the Treasurer, who is responsible for this bill, to outline what steps have been undertaken since the Premier made his statements way back in January, many months ago, that the authorities were considering how to return the state's emergency decision-making to cabinet government. I would ask that the Treasurer outline either in his wrap-up or perhaps at clause 1 what steps have been taken to fulfil the commitment that the Premier gave way back in January and why we are being asked now to continue piecemeal extensions when in fact the government has continually represented that they are looking at a more appropriate and permanent regime.

I would also ask the Premier to outline what is the rationale behind the date in September. Why not shorten it and then return to parliament, if that was not a reasonable time frame? On the basis of how the Treasurer can answer and outline those questions, the opposition will consider in what form they support the bill before us.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:24): The Greens have a number of questions that we will be asking in relation to this bill in committee. My colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks has indicated that she will have a number of questions to raise. One of the issues that I intend to raise that I have concerns with in this bill relates to clause 3, and that is the provisions that relate to the moratorium on evictions and on rent increases.

Those provisions were put in place in response to the economic crisis faced by vulnerable South Australians. I welcome the fact that the government did put those protections in place because we know that vulnerable South Australians, particularly those who are renting, have been really hard hit by the pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis. But those provisions will come to an end. I know the government has talked about extending it for a month, up until June, but that really is not good enough, and that is one of the significant concerns the Greens have.

I take this opportunity to read into Hansard some of the stories of renters during this economic crisis, because I think it is very important that people understand the implications of not extending this moratorium. In the committee stage I will be moving to amend the bill so that we extend those protections for another 12 months, up until May next year.

I refer to a news article published on Thursday 15 October on ABC online by the national social affairs reporter, Norman Hermant, and the specialist reporting team's Lucy Kent. This was looking at renters and at the impact of the pandemic on that cohort. The headline reads, 'Renters skipping meals and paying bills late to afford rent during coronavirus pandemic, study finds'. The article goes on to say:

Researchers behind the biggest ever snapshot of Australian renters suspected they would see a big impact from COVID-19 in their survey, but they did not realise how large it would be. 'The first thing that really struck me is the absolute scale of the effect of COVID-19, and how it has affected people's lives', Emma Baker, professor of housing research at the University of Adelaide, said.

More than a third of people were doing things like not being able to pay their bills and skipping meals. Lots of people were affected by things like not being able to pay their rent, but also what came up was this risk of eviction and not knowing what was going to happen.

So people not being able to pay their rent on time, people being in fear of eviction and people living under a cloud of uncertainty. This was a significant study by the Australian Research Council, a survey of 15,000 renters and households in July and August of last year.

This moratorium on rent increases and evictions has thrown those people a temporary lifeline, and the government is talking about pulling the rug out from under them in the middle of the worst economic crisis in a generation, in the middle of this one-in-100-year pandemic. That is something the Greens are very concerned about and I intend to talk further about this in the committee stage.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:28): I rise to speak on the COVID-19 Emergency Response (Expiry) (No. 2) Amendment Bill. At first glance it appears that we are being asked to extend all the provisions of the response to 17 September—for 3½ months—but in reality we are focusing on the extension of specific provisions related to: the power of the State Coordinator and authorised officers to issue directions; assault provisions against prescribed emergency workers; and residential tenancies, residential parks and supported residential facilities.

According to the briefings we have received, a number of provisions contained in the act have been working well, and members would agree that some provisions have been working well and should be enshrined in legislation permanently. We will have a bit more to say about that when we deal with the permanent measures bill, which contains a number of measures that we are very supportive of.

The Attorney has indicated that the remaining provisions, which include the reverse presumption of bail for certain offences and detention of certain protected persons, are to be expired by Gazette on 31 May. She has indicated her intention to expire sections 8, 9 and 10—the residential tenancies, residential parks and supported residential facilities provisions—at the end of this financial year.

Though we have not been supplied with any specific data—and we have made a request for very specific data about the number of COVID-related applications considered by SACAT—we are being told that these temporary measures are being used significantly less as time goes on. We have been advised that the hardship provisions that predate the emergency measures are in fact being used by SACAT a lot more often and a lot more effectively. I would have liked, prior to today, to have the actual statistics in front of us. We do not have those. I note for the record that we have asked for them, but we do not have those.

I have had some discussions with honourable members across the floor in relation to these provisions, particularly given that the Hon. Robert Simms has filed amendments with the effect of extending those dates to 1 May 2022. Our position has been that we are not minded to support an almost half-year extension of those provisions. We have concerns, and have been concerned all along, about the impact that this is also having on mum-and-dad landlords, who have been hit just as hard as others by the adverse impacts of COVID in terms of rental income that they have received.

This has been a difficult situation all round, and in here we have all endeavoured to do our level best to make it accessible and fair for all the parties involved. I note that there are ongoing safety nets in the existing hardship provisions that I have pointed to in the Residential Tenancies Act. They are not going anywhere; we know they are going to stay there. Those protections, if indeed they are being used more than the COVID measures, as we are told—I think it is fair to say that the test, in terms of getting the provision of hardship under the COVID measures, is exceptionally high, given that you have to prove that there is a direct link back to COVID, as opposed to the more generic hardship provisions. I think we must be mindful of that in this as well.

Having said all that, SA-Best always likes to sit in the centre of things, so I am always looking for a compromise where I think there can be one. If indeed it is correct, as we are being told, that these provisions are being under-utilised, then there would be, in my view, no reason for them to expire in June, and they could expire in September of this year. I accept that we have been extraordinarily generous in terms of those provisions, compared to other jurisdictions. I accept that there are already hardship provisions available, as I have just outlined, which might be more easily accessed than the ones we have been debating today. I am very mindful of the impact that this has on landlords as well.

So, on that basis, I have been talking to the Attorney, through her office, and have asked her to give us an undertaking that, at the very least, these provisions will not be extinguished prior to September this year. I do see that as a way forward. I see that as somewhat of a middle ground between what we are being told on one hand by the government and the concerns that the Hon. Mr Simms has highlighted on the other. If it turns out that, in the meantime, we get statistics that show this is overwhelmingly incorrect, we can address it then.

I think we also need to make it crystal clear for the record that we are all expecting to see what the permanent measures will look like by September, above and beyond those that have been addressed in the permanent measures bill that I referred to earlier.

The South Australian community across the board has been extraordinarily patient and understanding of the position that we are all in with this declared state of emergency, and I am hoping that by September the many businesses that continue to operate under the restrictions of the current directions, for instance the three per four square metre rule, will be able to trade as usual.

I am hoping that business will be able to get back to some sense of normalcy, but qualify that by saying we also have to be very vigilant and very prepared, should there be an outbreak in South Australia. It is a fine balancing act. I think we all accept that it is a very fine balancing act. While we are minded to support the extension of the power of the State Coordinator and authorised officers to issue directions until 17 September, again I want to make it crystal clear for the record that this is not indefinite support for these measures.

It has been over a year since we declared a major emergency. I am sure the State Coordinator himself would like us to move towards more permanent measures that would see him get back to the business of being the police commissioner but still enable him and his team to issue directions where they are appropriate, outside of a declared state of emergency, should, God forbid, things turn ugly for us, which we all accept can happen at any given hour on any given day; we just do not know, that is the nature of the COVID beast.

I hope, certainly, that the government acknowledges that all members in this place have been willing to work together. We have been willing to trust in decisions being made for the benefit of the entire South Australian community that we would not, ordinarily, make in this place. We have made these decisions sometimes very quickly and with very little information available to us, but we again absolutely accept that by extending this to September we expect to see those permanent measures, as I have outlined, dealt with once and for all.

We cannot keep going and keep businesses, communities and people in limbo forever. We support it on that basis and look forward to further discussions with the Attorney, the government and indeed all members about what those permanent measures might look like in the next raft of changes, and specifically as they relate to the State Coordinator's powers outside a declared state of emergency.

With those words, I indicate our support for the bill. I indicate that, while we will not be supporting the amendments of the Hon. Robert Simms, I acknowledge and understand wholeheartedly why they have been proposed. I am hoping that there will be agreement that at least extending this out to September of this year will provide us with a bit more certainty going forward than what we have at the moment. At that point, we will be better placed to make decisions about what is permanent, what is not and how we proceed from here.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:37): I thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros. She has said most of what SA-Best believes on this matter in showing our support for this. Like the Hon. Kyam Maher, I am hoping that the government does take control of the reins much sooner rather than later. I am sure the State Coordinator would like to get back to his normal day job of fighting crime in South Australia, although I must say he has been doing both jobs quite admirably. We commend him and SAPOL for the work that they have done during this COVID pandemic. In saying this, think of this scenario: if the government wants another extension after September, it could take the State Coordinator's tenure until the end of the year, or beyond, going to the state election.

The Hon. E.S. Bourke: We might have to put him on a corflute!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, what we might find is that it could make the State Coordinator a month short of the Premier in leading the state, which would be an extraordinary situation. As for the hardship measures for renters, while I am very sympathetic with what the Greens have put up, I endorse what my colleague the Hon. Conaros—Bonnie—Connie Bonaros has said.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: I'll take both.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: That is the first time being tongue-tied for me. I endorse the words of the Hon. Connie Bonaros, and we await the Attorney's assurances on that as well. I will point out that, even though they have copped a bit of stick in some sectors, we have to acknowledge that landlords have also borne the brunt of lockdowns, restrictions and rent payments that have been deferred.

Landlords, like other businesses and other businesspeople, do have commitments. They are not a bank, and they have to eke out a living in difficult economic times such as this. I am not sure when those land tax bills are going out, but when they do they are going to cause some landlords some grief, so I think we need to bear in mind that they have also had to bear a burden during the pandemic situation.

We also need to consider that tens of thousands have now moved off JobKeeper payments and have gone back into work. We can actually see the economy starting to tick over now. That is a good thing, but many businesses, such as cafes and restaurants, are still hurting and are still to get back to capacity. Many are still operating at 60 per cent capacity and they would like some normalcy. In closing, we will support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:41): I thank honourable members for their contribution to the second reading. The Leader of the Opposition raised some general questions about alternative options that have been canvassed since, I think he said, January this year. I think it is correct to say that the Premier and indeed others have canvassed a variety of alternative mechanisms that might be possible.

The government's position at this stage is that, whilst alternative options have been considered and continue to be considered, it is the government's view at this stage that this particular model, for all its strengths and weaknesses, is the best model in terms of managing the COVID-19 pandemic. I think, whatever anyone thinks about governments generally—Labor, Liberal, state or federal—we would all much rather be in Australia, and in particular in South Australia, than in most other parts of the world, given the way we as a nation and as a state have handled COVID-19.

That is in no small part due to the governance model that we have had. As clunky as it might be and—I cannot remember the exact words the Premier used—as ill-suited as it might be to the whole notion of an ongoing emergency, which is what we are talking about, those who drafted the original provisions would have been envisaging relatively short-term emergencies such as bushfires, perhaps earthquakes, possibly floods and the like. No-one was contemplating a 12 months plus global pandemic such as COVID-19.

So yes, it is clunky, but the simple answer to the member's question—and I will not be able to provide any more detail in the committee stage—is yes, we have considered and are still as a government considering what better governance models or alternative mechanisms there might be. But as we stand here today, it is the government's position that the current model we have is the best model for continuing to cope with these circumstances as they confront us. I will leave my comments in relation to the issue of evictions and rent increase provisions for the committee stage of the debate when the amendment is moved.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My first question is a reasonably obvious one, and I know it was canvassed in the other place, but why has this particular expiry date been chosen?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that previous iterations of this legislation have gone for three-month blocks and it is slightly longer than that to fit the sitting calendar, so it is three months and a couple of weeks, as I understand it, or something like that. Essentially, the previous extensions were for three-month periods and when the sitting calendar was considered it was extended for a little bit beyond the three-month period.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: We are well over a year into the pandemic, why has the government not provided a range of levels of lockdown, as other countries and jurisdictions have done? For example, when we entered the short-circuit lockdown why was there not a level 1, 2, 3 or 4 that the community had been consulted on—particularly businesses and those who were, say, deemed to be essential workers but were not sure if they were essential workers or not, and facing a potential fine—so that they could actually see what the situation was rather than waiting for the State Coordinator declarations and determinations, often nearing midnight, that often have to be tweaked on the run? Why are we not actually forward planning at this point?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that in relation to interstate restrictions there are some elements of gradations—levels, I think, to use the honourable member's word or phrase. In relation to within state restrictions, which is the point of the honourable member's question, that has not been resolved as yet. It certainly continues to be under consideration. My advice is that it is not entirely clear that other states have every i dotted and every t crossed in terms of the level of intrastate restriction in their jurisdictions either.

It is a relatively simple concept to talk about but I am advised that it is a much more difficult concept to deliver on. The model that we have used in South Australia is one to be flexible and to be nimble and to be agile. Whilst the member refers to the fact that it is the police commissioner who issues the ultimate direction, the Transition Committee—which incorporates, as the member would be aware, a number of senior officers, including health and police, and a couple of other agencies as well—provides advice ultimately to the police commissioner in terms of the implementation of the intrastate restrictions, whilst ultimately the legislation does leave it to the police commissioner.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the government please provide the list of organisations, agencies and individuals that the Transition Committee has consulted with?

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: About what?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: About the pandemic and the management of this pandemic.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I cannot give a list. Given that the pandemic has now been more than 12 months the list of organisations, individuals, departments, agencies that would have had contact with the Department for Health, the public health division, the police commissioner and his senior officers, the department for industry—no, investment and trade, whatever they call them, investment and trade—the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and other members would be too numerous to mention.

I think it is fair to say that anyone who wants to put a point of view has put a point of view to members of the Transition Committee, either individually or publicly. There is no shortage of advice from stakeholder groups and individuals in relation to the members of the Transition Committee and indeed the Premier and the Minister for Health, who are the two ministers with the most direct line of contact with the Transition Committee.

I am not in a position to give a comprehensive list of all those individuals and organisations that at some stage have provided advice to members of the Transition Committee or indeed to the Premier and the Minister for Health, who are the two ministers who consult most with the Transition Committee.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Minister, why does the Transition Committee not make its affairs publicly known and publish its minutes and determinations?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thought I had seen released publicly in the media minutes of the Transition Committee. So I assume some parliamentary committee at some stage must have required them or requested them. I think the honourable member might be on a committee, but I am not sure. Certainly, I have read in the media in South Australia—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Via FOIs and leaks is how you have read it in the media.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is it? Okay, so they have not been released to a parliamentary committee?

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Some have, but they—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, I understood they had been released to a parliamentary committee. Whether they were leaked from the parliamentary committee or not, I am not sure. My very strong view in relation to these issues is that the police commissioner, the Chief Public Health Officer (Professor Spurrier), the Minister for Health and the Premier on almost a daily basis have been answering for any decisions the Transition Committee and the police commissioner ultimately have taken. So there is no shortage of transparency and accountability in terms of defending the decisions that have been taken.

I think these sorts of critical decisions that need to be taken are probably best conducted confidentially to allow people to have a full and frank exchange of views, and then ultimately there is a final decision, which the police commissioner is responsible for, and ultimately the police commissioner, the Chief Public Health Officer and others have to defend it. Whilst I understand the honourable member's interest in having comprehensive minutes taken and then being publicly released on a regular basis, it is not a view that I share. So we will have to respectfully agree to disagree in relation to the usefulness of that in terms of trying to manage COVID-19.

There will always be, in terms of these difficult decisions, differing views being expressed. Ultimately, decisions have to be taken, and ultimately, those who take them have to defend the decisions. There has been no shortage of people being prepared, from the police commissioner onwards, to defend whatever decisions they have taken and to receive the criticisms they have received for some of the decisions they have taken.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will reiterate my question and ask that it be taken on notice that the Transition Committee's consultations—organisations, agencies, lobby groups, individuals—be made available. I would ask that that be taken on notice and provided by the government. I think it is only fair that those groups that have had access to the Transition Committee should be known by the South Australian community.

While the minister answered my question by disagreeing with me that the Transition Committee minutes should not be publicly known, I will note a few things and just place them on the record. I am part of the COVID committee and the COVID committee regularly asks the Transition Committee for their minutes. Regularly, they are incredibly lax in providing those minutes and they ask us to keep them from any public record.

The stories that you have seen in the media are from leaks and FOIs that were done well before the receipt of those minutes by the COVID committee. Indeed, an FOI or a leak is the way to get the information currently about what happens in the Transition Committee. My question was not whether the Treasurer agreed with me but to explain why the Transition Committee has been conducting its business in secret.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I answered the question and I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave. In relation to the honourable member's further request for me to take on notice a comprehensive list of everyone who has been consulted, I have provided an answer and I will not be taking on notice to provide a list of all the people who have been consulted over the last 13 months or so in relation to anyone who has expressed a view to members of the Transition Committee in relation to the issues that they have to make decisions on.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I only have a few more questions, so the minister can breathe a sigh of relief, no doubt. In terms of advice to the Transition Committee by the Chief Public Health Officer, how many times was her advice overruled in the Transition Committee, on what occasions and for what purposes?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just at the outset, I welcome the questions from the Hon. Ms Franks and encourage her to ask as many as she wishes. I do not have any information along those lines and, even if I did, I would not be sharing it publicly. As I said, for us to manage, in my view, the COVID-19 pandemic as well as we have, the Transition Committee should be an occasion where they can exchange in a free and frank way their views as to how restrictions should either be eased or imposed. Then, ultimately, as the legislation outlines, the police commissioner has to make his determination and be answerable for it.

I think there has been some public acknowledgement by the police commissioner. I know of at least one occasion where there was a differing view, but I think on most other occasions where there has been public acknowledgement Professor Spurrier and the police commissioner have been as one in terms of their views and/or advice in terms of how we should best manage the COVID pandemic.

Given that sort of balance over a 13-month period, there has been one particular time—maybe there was another or a very small number; I cannot remember—where there has been public acknowledgement that there are differing views being expressed. For the rest of the time, there has been unanimous agreement. I think that is an impressive effort and one that should be lauded and supported and I do so.

As I said, I do not have the knowledge and I am certainly not going to place on the public record or add to it the information in relation to whether or not or how many times there have been differences of opinion between the police commissioner and the Chief Public Health Officer or, indeed, perhaps others on the Transition Committee in relation to the particular nature of a restriction.

What I would say is that sometimes it is not just as black and white as that. Some of these areas are extraordinarily complex. If you look at how a particular restriction might be imposed or what the issues might be, there are various options that might be canvassed. Ultimately, compromises might be entered into that might not be the preferred position of either side but, ultimately, they come to a mutual position that is acceptable to both but that was not necessarily their original position.

Good governance sometimes requires compromise amongst all parties to come to sensible decisions. I invite not only the honourable member but others to judge by what has occurred and what has happened and what I believe is the relative success in terms of how COVID-19 has been managed by the Transition Committee and the key players in South Australia over a 13-month period or so.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: How then can the South Australian public accept that the Premier is telling the truth when he says that the Marshall government has taken health advice to manage the pandemic when they will not disclose when health advice has been ignored?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think I have been asked a similar question before in relation to this. I think the South Australian public can always be confident that the Premier tells the truth.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Did the pizza worker lie to a contact tracer that led to the situation that plunged the state into a lockdown?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not have knowledge in relation to the pizza worker.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Has the pizza worker now been afforded his contact tracer interview details and his health records that he sought to prove that he was misrepresented and indeed defamed by the Premier when the Premier said he lied to the contact tracer?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not have any information about the pizza worker.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Neither does the state, so we are all in the same boat there. I have a question in particular about the amendments in terms of pharmacy services. Can the minister outline the extension of this provision in terms of protecting those pharmacy workers and who exactly that is working in a pharmacy is protected by these protections?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My very quick advice is that it is pharmacists and pharmacy assistants. I am not sure whether the honourable member had any other potential workers in mind in relation to these protections or not, but that is my advice.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My understanding is that pharmacists, and certainly more broadly those who work in retail, have been subject to increased levels of violence and attacks and abuse because of the pandemic, particularly when we see a lack of forward planning about throwing the state into a circuit-breaker short lockdown with no pre-planning and levels and awareness of who should be at work or who should not be at work; who is an essential worker; who faces a fine for leaving the house; and whether or not their employer, if they demand that they leave the house, faces that same fine. There is a lack of clarity. In terms of pharmacy assistants and pharmacists, do these protections cover a simple retail worker who works in a pharmacy or not?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We might need to take advice. In the pharmacies that I attend, I see pharmacists and pharmacy assistants. I am not sure what the member refers to as a 'retail worker' in a pharmacy. When I go to a pharmacy, there is the pharmacist and there is somebody at the front counter who takes my money and assists me if I need to find where the Panadol is on the shelves or whatever it is. They are not trained as pharmacists. I would call them pharmacy assistants. The member may well be referring to them as retail workers, but I am not sure. It is the general nature of the pharmacies I attend that that is the nature of the worker and, if that is the case, my advice is that they are covered by the legislation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister clarify, for somebody who is not the pharmacist, who is not called in their job title a 'pharmacy assistant' and is indeed working on the counter at the till or in any other capacity in a pharmacy, where we know there has been increased violence, abuse and these protections were put in place, are there different levels of protections for workers in a pharmacy currently? Is that what we are perpetuating here?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I just remind members that this provision has not changed for all the period. The legislation says 'a person (whether a pharmacist, pharmacy assistant or otherwise) performing duties in a pharmacy', so the answer to the question would be yes.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Why have other retail workers not been afforded similar protections, given the level and increase in violence and abuse that they have been subjected to and will continue to should we be in further stages of lockdown?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, this has not changed since the legislation was first introduced. Healthcare workers were the ones who were incorporated into the legislation. I would have to say that the sorts of issues that the honourable member is canvassing were certainly commonly referred to at the height of the pandemic through last year.

As someone who is a regular attender of retail outlets, I know there is certainly none of the chaos that we were seeing at varying stages in the early stages of the pandemic, where people were fighting amongst themselves for toilet rolls or packets of mince or spaghetti or whatever it might happen to be. Thankfully, because of the way South Australia has managed the pandemic, we have been not confronted with those sorts of situations.

That is not to say that there are not occasional outbursts, I am sure, of abuse of retail workers in other outlets, but that occurs outside of COVID-19 as an occasional issue for retail workers generally. You only have to talk to my very good friends in the shoppies union to know that COVID-19 in and of itself will not either stop or start the occasional outburst of abuse against retail workers.

That is the simple answer to the question. It was essentially protections directed towards health workers, and health workers eventually got extended to include pharmacy and pharmacy assistants and people who work in pharmacies.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In her remarks earlier, the Hon. Connie Bonaros referenced a commitment that had been provided by the Attorney-General regarding the extension of the provisions protecting renters from eviction and rent increases. It was indicated that this would be extended until September. Could the minister give a commitment on behalf of the government that this is in fact the case?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Whilst I do not have any direct knowledge of the undertaking, I am advised the Attorney-General did give an undertaking along the lines that have been evidently outlined by the Hon. Ms Bonaros.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: To be clear, renters can be assured that their protections will be extended until September?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that is the undertaking the Attorney-General has given.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Treasurer advise when we can expect to see the permanent measures relating specifically to directions? I refer not to the permanent measures we have in the permanent measures bill already before us but the ones relating specifically to directions and the commissioner's powers—when can we expect to see those? Can he also confirm which department is actually working on those—is it the Minister for Police, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Health and Wellbeing, or all three? Who is going to be responsible for those, and when can we expect to see them?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This extends the discussion the Leader of the Opposition raised. The answer is that a number of agencies are actively engaged in this: the Attorney-General's Department, the police commissioner and his officers, clearly the health department, Premier and Cabinet and, I suspect also, Investment and Trade, maybe at a peripheral level. I think the Investment and Trade chief executive officer is a member of the Transition Committee, but I suspect is not leading any discussion.

The key movers in relation to any alternative possible governance model would obviously be Attorney-General's, police, Health and Premier and Cabinet would be the key. The Under Treasurer is also on the Transition Committee, but again in terms of alternative governance models I suspect the other agencies, in particular Attorney-General's, Health and police, would be the three keys in terms of potential alternative models.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In reference to the second part of my question, a number of measures have expired and a number are due to expire. We have an extension until September. I think members want some certainty that we are going to have something to look at and consider well in advance of that date so that we can get our heads around those permanent measures. Is there a time frame in place and when can we expect to see a bill to that effect?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: An extension of what I said earlier is that it is an option that the government, having concluded this time that for the next three months the best option of all the alternative governance models is the current one, we cannot rule out the fact that in three months' time we will come back and say, 'We've looked at all these alternative models and they are all clunky, and the current clunky model we've got is as good as we're going to get and we recommend that we continue it.' The parliament will have to decide whether they want to or not.

I do not think we can assume that this is the last possible extension of this—it might be, because work is being done to look at whether there is a better model. It may well be that there is a better model that the parliament is asked to consider, and if that is the case it should be, as the member has indicated, well prior to the expiration of this one. It is entirely possible that, as clunky as it might be as some might see it, this is the best model in terms of managing COVID-19, and there is a further extension for another three-month period.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am not sure whether the Treasurer is in a position to answer this question, but given that we are canvassing the issue of directions and the commissioner's powers, can he confirm whether he knows there are penalties for not using QR codes but no penalties for entering fake details, because they are dealt with by directions, as I understand it—I might be wrong. If they are dealt with by directions, we have to check-in using the QR codes, because that is the direction of the State Coordinator.

They have announced today that they have started to issue fines for not checking in. As I understand it, there is no penalty for entering fake details, so I can say that I am Bonnie Smith and that is not an offence, but not checking in is an offence, potentially.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that it is an offence, in relation to the QR code, for both the individual and the business. I think the police commissioner has been entirely reasonable in relation to this thus far, and I think it is only for those—and these are not his words; they are my words—who are blatantly in your face about not complying, if a police officer asks you to comply or to do something, where there might have been penalties imposed.

At this stage, they have preferred to use education and encouragement, and generally most South Australians and businesses comply. My understanding is that if someone, just having been advised to do something, in an impolite way told a police officer to go away, they may well attract the full extent of what the penalty might be in relation to that.

The quick advice we have in relation to the drafting is that it would probably cover the person who signs the write-in register as Jesus Christ of mount whatever it is as their name and their residential address. The quick advice seems to be that the current drafting would probably cover that set of circumstances.

I am not aware of whether or not anyone has been caught and charged in that particular way, but the quick advice, subject to further clarification, is that the current drafting is probably broad enough to canvass the sort of circumstance the honourable member has outlined, should someone be caught. You would obviously have to have evidence as to who it was who signed their name as Jesus Christ with a false residential address and, I suppose, ultimately be able to prove in a court that that was the person rather than the unfortunate person walking in afterwards.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Are retail workers essential?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Whilst I think they are essential in layperson's terms, my advice is that they probably do not comply with the definitions under the act. They are essentially directed towards categories of workers, obviously including health workers and others, that have been designated by the legislation as essential.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Have retail workers played an essential role during the emergency declaration?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, and whenever I meet my friends and colleagues in the shoppies union I am obviously constantly thanking them for the work of their members and employees. I think all members, particularly through the worst of the pandemic last year, would acknowledge the fact that for a number of retail workers and a number of retail establishments, when they were being almost submerged by customers throwing toilet rolls at each other and fighting each other, it was a very difficult set of circumstances.

Without wanting to be inflammatory, that of course is one of the reasons why it was sensible to extend the shop trading hours to try to spread the number of customers over a longer period of time. I think everyone supports the hard work done by retail workers and indeed many other workers, who might not be designated as essential within the terms of the legislation but nevertheless have undertaken important work in terms of managing COVID-19.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I think the answer to that was that retail workers are not necessarily essential. Was that the case of the minister's answer?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No. What I said was, I think they are essential, but I am a layperson. Under the terms of the act, they are not designated as essential.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Are supermarket workers, under the terms of the act, essential and are they not retail workers?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: When we were discussing with the Hon. Ms Bourke retail workers, I was referring to supermarket workers as well.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the minister clarify whether under the operations of the act to date supermarket workers have been considered essential?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I just answered that question.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If a supermarket worker was called in to work under a lockdown, as they have been in the past, because the supermarkets remained open, would they face the penalty of quite a substantial amount for leaving their homes if they were deemed by the police not to be essential?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not know that I can add anything further to it. I am not aware of any evidence in South Australia of the police taking action against a retail worker in the sort of circumstances that the honourable member has canvassed. If she has evidence of that, I would invite her to place it on the public record.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will ignore the debate and argument in that particular answer, because it is not what I said. What I asked is, how does a worker know if they are essential? Should we go into another lockdown, where is that criterion? I will give you an example. If a worker is called into work at OTR—an On the Run—and we are in a stage of lockdown again, are they essential or are they not essential?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The best I can offer the honourable member is that the way it is operated is if a business is allowed to open and operate then the business is entitled to have, or allowed to have, workers who work within it. My recollection—it is a long time ago that we had the lockdowns and the sort of circumstances the honourable member is talking about—is that service stations were allowed to operate and therefore workers would have been allowed to work within them.

I think there was an argument at one stage during part of the lockdown. The member has referred to a particular commercial outlet, but let's say a 24-hour service station that had other aspects where they were providing, perhaps, the equivalent to cafe services as opposed to petrol. I think there might have been a brief period where the police may well have determined that the people who were working in the cafe—if the cafes, for example, had been required to close down.

I am going on memory now. I have some experience with friends and colleagues and others who work in the cafe industry. For the bulk of the time, if not all of it, they were able to operate, albeit with a takeaway service. Whilst they were not allowed to have people come in and sit down, they were able to have people come and get their coffee to take away and also any takeaway foods that there were. In those circumstances, workers who were required to do that would have been entitled to do that.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Say the worker was working in the cafe—and the minister does remember correctly that there was confusion around this—and not in the provision of the essential services. Indeed, cafes were closed down, were told that they needed to get rid of their stock, do whatever needed to be done, be out of there by midnight that night and not come back for another three days—or six days it was cast as at first. Should that worker be found not to be essential, who is liable for the fine? Is it the employer for calling them in or the employee for doing what their employer told them to do?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In the circumstances I understand the honourable member is hypothetically trying to outline—that is, there is a police commissioner direction that the cafe is not allowed to open and the business owner opens it—it would be the business owner who should be the person responsible.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will go back to my original example: the On the Run. It provides the services of a service station. These have been deemed essential. However, it also has a cafe. The workers in that cafe are called in to work. Under the pandemic provisions of a lockdown and indeed the penalties that apply should you breach the various directions, who pays the fine, if there is a fine? Is it the employer for unlawfully directing the workers to come in contrary to the provisions of this act, or is it the employee, who is simply doing what the employer told them to do?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It would be my view that if the employer was the one who ultimately directed someone to do something they should not, it would be the employer who would be responsible. Whilst I enjoy the hypothetical situations the honourable member is seeking to construct in this debate and am happy to continue to engage, the way the police commissioner and his officers have generally handled the situation, as I said in relation to the earlier questions in relation to the QR code, has I think on virtually all occasions been entirely reasonable.

During that particular period there were questions not just about cafes but also, at one stage, I am not sure whether they were wineries or distilleries in the Adelaide Hills, for example, but there were questions as to whether they were entitled to have takeaway food or not.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: Prancing Pony.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, Prancing Pony and things like that. By and large, the police handled it pretty reasonably, I think, in terms of providing guidance and advice. My recollection was, and I stand to be corrected, they did not march in there and smash fines down on the counter and say, 'We are charging you and penalising you in relation to this.' They sought to clarify where there was confusion. They provided advice and guidance and, by and large, the businesses complied with ultimately the directions of the police. As I said, I enjoy the engagement with the hypothetical situations the member is raising and am happy to continue, but I think the police have generally handled the situation pretty well in South Australia in relation to these sorts of circumstances.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I advise that these are not actually hypotheticals; these were real-life situations that happened due to a lack of clarity given by the government and a lack of due diligence in consulting with people before we actually had to undertake restrictive pandemic provisions. That is something that should have been done by now. In terms of the Prancing Pony, what charges does the minister think they would have been subjected to? He just noted that they may have been subjected to charges.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I never said that.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I do not expect the Treasurer to provide this now, but perhaps some time before this bill comes into effect at least, could he just confirm that quick advice that he provided in relation to providing the fake details? I only ask that because I have read through some of the online forums that tell people how to use QR codes, and I have come across some that specifically say that entering fake details is not an offence but, if you do not enter your details, that is an offence. So I think, even from an educational perspective, it is important that we alert South Australians to the fact that if I go and sign up as Bonnie Smith, that may potentially get me into a bit of hot water.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to ask the Attorney-General whether it is her or the police commissioner. I am sure there are more useful forums such as 'Frequently answered questions' or something on the COVID-19 website as opposed to online forums to provide advice.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, but what I think the honourable member is asking is: what is the official advice from the police or the Attorney-General's Department? I am happy to seek further clarity and see whether the COVID-19 government website or the police commissioner's website, or whatever it is, provides clarity in relation to the question that the honourable member has raised.

The CHAIR: Are there any other contributions at clause 1?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: A final note, because of some of the things that the minister has provided in his responses. In particular, I am just going to note that the Prancing Pony Brewery was operating as a takeaway, compliant with the pandemic restrictions, but then it was closed down because it was treated as a cellar door or a tourist destination with people supposedly travelling to the Hills to visit the premises. It sought legal action after SAPOL closed it down and it certainly was treated very differently to other businesses in the same category.

There was a great deal of confusion because of the lack of clarity and detail. While the minister has assured us that it all gets sorted out, in fact it took an extraordinary media campaign and the threat of legal action to have that particular business treated as it should have been right from the start and to get natural justice. I do not sympathise with the minister's belief that it will all be okay on the day. I do not believe we are actually providing SAPOL with the very tools that they need to do the job properly should we be plunged into another lockdown.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–1]—

Clause 3, page 2, after line 11—Insert:

(1) Section 6(1)(a)(i)—after 'Part 2' insert:

(other than sections 8 to 10 (inclusive))

(2) Section 6(1)(b)(i)—delete 'section 7' and substitute:

sections 8 to 10 (inclusive)

(3) Section 6(1)(c)—after 'expire' insert:

(which may not be earlier than the day on which sections 8 to 10 (inclusive) will expire under subsection (2a))

I do not intend to talk for an extended period about this amendment that the Greens are proposing. The issues have been well ventilated in this chamber over the last few weeks. I do want to put on the record that we appreciate the commitment the Hon. Rob Lucas has made on behalf of the government that the provisions relating to protections for renters from eviction and rent increases will be extended until September. We welcome that, but the reality is that we will be back here again in four months' time having the same conversation if the Greens' amendment is not carried.

What we are seeking to do with this amendment is to provide certainty to renters, those who are in fear of eviction and those who are experiencing financial hardship, for a year so that we can wait until the effects of this economic crisis have subsided. So I intend to press ahead with the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For obvious reasons, given the commitment the Attorney-General has given and that I passed on to this chamber on her behalf, as to this issue the government is opposing the amendment. The only other point I would wish to add to this particular debate is that this is an extraordinarily complex area. We had to resolve issues in relation to commercial tenancies and residential tenancies, and the government provided a lot of assistance. To be fair, financial institutions provided some level of assistance in that they deferred repayments in terms of loans and/or mortgages in certain circumstances for a period of time.

I think the issue here is that there are a number of examples. I think the Hon. Mr Pangallo hinted at this in his contribution, and I have had a couple of examples where a pensioner couple have two modestly priced residential properties that comprise a significant part of their ongoing income in terms of how they survive.

In this one case they borrowed to invest in these two residential properties. For the period of time at the height of the pandemic, the banks actually deferred repayments. Governments provided some either land tax benefits to them or payments to them to assist them through that first period—I think it was for a period of around six months, from March through to close to the end of the year.

The banks have now well and truly withdrawn. In that couple's case their ongoing repayments to the bank are required to be paid. What they have said to me and to others within government is, 'It was fine for that initial period where we didn't have to make repayments to the banks, and we were getting a little bit of assistance from the state government by way of financial assistance, but the banks are now requiring us to resume our repayments, because all they did was defer them, and there is no ongoing assistance from the state.' Then, if they are in the circumstance where somebody is not paying rent, they say, 'Well, we understand potentially the issue, but what are you saying to us?'

I guess the challenge in relation to the amendment the honourable member seeks support from the parliament on is that that couple and others in those circumstances may well be in a position, for a period of up to another 12 months, where they cannot increase the rent payment or, if the rents are not being paid, they are not in a position to evict an individual or family or whatever it might be.

So as a parliament we transfer the responsibility onto the pensioner couple with the couple of residential properties, which is the source of their income. That is convenient for the parliament to do—to say, 'Okay, that's your responsibility'—but I think there is this view that all landlords are big, fat, greedy and wealthy. Whilst that might be the view of some, I am sure the Hon. Mr Simms and everybody else realise that that is not the case in terms of the typical landlord who might be investing in residential properties.

I accept the complexity of this. I think as the Hon. Ms Bonaros adequately outlined—and I will not repeat what she said, because it is on the public record—there are hardship provisions that exist within the SACAT legislation at the moment. In the end, thankfully, I think, because of the way COVID-19 has been managed, we are seeing fewer and fewer cases that need to be considered in this particular area.

As I said, I will not repeat the arguments the Hon. Ms Bonaros put on the public record, but I did just want to put on the record the fact that there are a group of people in this who are forgotten. The banks are getting their money, and state and federal governments have gone about their way, although to respond to the Hon. Mr Pangallo, if any landlord as a result of our aggregation changes is paying increased land tax this year, 100 per cent of their increase of between $2,500 and $102,500 is rebated to them.

They should have no fear in relation to that set of circumstances, but they are a group who are going to potentially be left in a situation where they cannot evict. They may well have a view that someone is claiming to be COVID-impacted but they are not—they have another job or they have a second source of income and are just choosing to claim to be COVID-impacted.

SACAT does not always resolve issues overnight. It does take some time at SACAT in terms of resolving issues. Landlords may well be left in a situation through no fault of their own where they have no income at all, they can take no action and they are the ones who are left carrying the can for the scheme that we put in place for them. For those reasons, the government opposes the honourable member's amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am happy to very briefly outline again for the record that we will not be supporting the amendment and also the reasons why we are not supporting the amendment, which I think I have already outlined substantially. I note for the record also that we have a great deal of sympathy for the issues that the Treasurer has just outlined. This is a dilemma for all parties involved and particularly for those landlords who the Treasurer has outlined.

We acknowledge the position in relation to the banks—they want their money, everyone wants their money. There might be a group of residents who simply cannot afford to pay. There is no win in this for anybody, so I am pleased that the government has seen fit to at least reach a compromise that tries to balance as best as possible those competing interests between landlords and tenants. I think, in what is otherwise a very difficult and impossible situation, that is something and will provide some security to all those people involved.

I will also note for the record that if, as we are being told, these provisions are being under-utilised or if indeed the hardship provisions are being more utilised than the COVID provisions, this should not have much of an impact in terms of the slight extension in the date. For those reasons, I indicate again our position that we accept the government's undertaking and, on that basis, will not support the amendments by the Hon. Robert Simms.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will indicate—not that it probably matters, given where the numbers seem to be—that we will not be supporting the amendments on this occasion. As the Hon. Connie Bonaros said, we, too, have sympathy with some of the thought behind the amendment being put forward. We do note the government's assurance today that this will not be gazetted away at the end of this financial year but will remain so we can consider it again when the provisions this bill seeks to extend are extended again in September.

Reflecting on some of the points that the mover of the amendment has made, there is a great deal that we agree with that probably cannot be even close to addressed in an amendment to this bill but speaks to a much greater structural problem with the rental market, affordability and equity in housing. Again, there is much that we agree with but cannot be fixed by any amendment to this bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I note the comments made and it is clear that this amendment is not going to be supported. That is regrettable from our perspective because it means there will be more uncertainty that renters will face in the months ahead. I put members of this chamber on notice that the Greens will continue to pursue this and other protections for people who are experiencing financial hardship and are struggling to find secure accommodation.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Simms–1]—

Page 2, after line 13—Insert:

(5) Section 6—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) Sections 8 to 10 (inclusive) will expire on 1 May 2022.

I will move this because it relates to the fundamental question about 1 May. I do not propose to rehash the arguments I have already made, but I do put members on notice that if this amendment is not successful I will call a division so that the views of elected members here are recorded appropriately in the Hansard.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 2

Noes 19

Majority 17

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Title passed.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.