Legislative Council Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Statutes Amendment (COVID-19 Permanent Measures) Bill Statutes Amendment (COVID-19 Permanent Measures) Bill Statutes Amendment (COVID-19 Permanent Measures) Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 8 June 2021.) The Hon. K.J. MAHER Legislative Council Leader of the Opposition The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (15:55): I rise to speak to the bill and indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition. The bill makes permanent various temporary measures that were included in the earlier COVID-19 emergency legislation. Under the bill these changes will become an ongoing part of our laws regardless of whether an emergency is declared or not. The changes include allowing various meetings and mental health inspections via audio or audiovisual means, paying container deposit refunds electronically and reducing administrative processes for executing mortgages. Public health laws will be amended to allow directions via various means, extend the time for giving written notice of directions and authorising disclosure of information for medical research or statistical purposes. The bill also amends the Emergency Management Act regarding identity cards, confidentiality of information and expiations for breaching directions. The bill goes beyond existing COVID-19 laws with regard to government immunity from liability. Previous COVID-19 emergency legislation provided immunity for any government actions taken in response under the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act. This bill provides immunity for any government actions taken under the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act and the Emergency Management Act and the Public Health Act, in addition to any prescribed regulation. What is more telling is not what is in the bill but what is missing from the bill. The bill does not extend the end date for temporary COVID-19 measures that was the subject of a separate bill. It does not make permanent any additional powers and, curiously, nor have we seen the long-mooted change in the way the emergency management coordination is structured. We have heard—I think last year and certainly from very early this year—that the government has been trying to move ahead with more substantive changes. We read in the media that changes were mooted but the Liberal Party's own party room rejected changes that were suggested for emergency management. What that means is that we are left with an ad hoc basis. There are reports that some of those who were charged with managing the emergency would prefer to see the roles and functions change but, alas, after many months of discussion we are yet to see the government come forward with these. I would say that all legislation to do with emergency management or things ancillary to that, including making some of those powers more permanent, we have supported as an opposition and we will be doing so on this. The Hon. C. BONAROS Legislative Council The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:58): I rise on behalf of SA-Best to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment (COVID-19 Permanent Measures) Bill 2021 second reading. I will start by saying that we support most of the provisions in the bill. We do not propose to take any action in relation to any of them but I would like to make some points. In terms of audiovisual attendance at meetings, that is certainly something that we support, or to effect transactions, that is something that we think is a very good innovation that has expanded due to restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, I look forward to the same provisions applying to select committees in this place without the requirement that the reasons for using AV equipment have to be linked to COVID-19, which I do not think makes any sense at all. Using AV access provides attendees with a more equitable and cost-effective means of fully participating irrespective of physical location and personal circumstances. I recall just last week someone was coming over from interstate and asked if I was available for a meeting. The next day that state went into lockdown and all of a sudden their flight was cancelled. They said, 'Are you available via Zoom or Teams?' I think that was an indication that we probably could have done that meeting via Zoom or Teams in the first place. Nonetheless, they were making the trip over and so asked for a physical meeting, and that is obviously fine where it is possible to do that as well. There is no doubt that using AV has lots of additional benefits. As I was reminded by my adviser, it is also very beneficial in terms of cutting down on carbon emissions from driving or flying to attend face-to-face meetings, so it is sensible to make this available long term not only to the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee but as many boards and committees as possible, including, even though they are not within the realm of this bill, our select committees. I think it would be interesting to see a cost-saving analysis of how much the national COVID-19 cabinet meeting saved South Australia by meeting via AV throughout 2020 and 2021. The amendments to the Emergency Management Act are also administrative efficiencies that have arisen from our experiences during the pandemic and are positive initiatives to implement longer term, should an emergency be declared at any time. However, I do appreciate concerns around provisions that protect the Crown from liability when acting or omitting to act in regard to section 22 of the COVID act, the South Australian Public Health Act or any other act. One only has to recall the appalling treatment of the Woodville pizza shop employee to see how dangerous and detrimental such unfettered powers can be. That said, I think we also have to bear in mind that that provision is not inconsistent with similar immunities that exist across our statute books. It is also difficult for me to see why the EPA should now be required to hold an annual roundtable conference. This is hardly needed as a permanent measure arising from an exemption granted during COVID-19, or at least I do not think it is. It seems more of an administrative efficiency the EPA is seeking with a very tenuous, if any, link to COVID-19, but again, we are happy to accept that. On the other hand, the ability for recycling centres to make payments via EFT and to use other cashless systems is welcomed as a streamlining and modernising initiative. I am pleased to see the Chief Psychiatrist and community visitors acting under the Mental Health Act can visit and conduct inspections via AV, but I and I think other members do not want to see these used as a substitute for face-to-face personal interactions. Mental health care and treatment are such that they do require all of the personal and human skills and compassion we can bring with them. While AV is useful where no other means are safe, I do not think it would be wise to see this replace those face-to-face consultations and visits. The figures I have indicate that the CVS was conducting AV visits with clients since May 2020 and resumed in-person visits from July 2020. AV visits were then reinstated in November 2020 because of the Parafield cluster, and then in January this year in-person visits resumed. As I understand it, since May 2020, the CVS completed 56 audiovisual visits as follows: 10 in disability, eight in the Office of the Public Advocate, 29 in mental health generally and nine dealing with detention orders. As I understand it, the Principal Community Visitor considers the increased flexibility of visits by AV will also be useful in circumstances where there are no community visitors available to attend in person, such as regional and remote areas. I do appreciate the reasons why AV would be attractive, but again, for the record, I really do expect that we continue to monitor these provisions because the last thing we want is to become over-reliant on audiovisual visits at the expense of in-person visits and all they have to offer, not just in the metropolitan areas but of course in our regional and remote areas. Concerns I initially had about the permanent amendments to the Real Property Act in this bill have been alleviated by the Attorney-General's assurances that the banking industry strongly supports these initiatives to modernise banking practices in SA. The amendments to the South Australian Public Health Act, which would see some of the COVID pandemic measures become permanent measures, are intended to only be enlivened if other emergencies were to be declared. I would not want the Chief Public Health Officer to be able to authorise the appropriate disclosure of information for medical, research or statistical purposes in any circumstances other than a declared emergency. I think it speaks for itself as to why we would not want that. Finally, I would like to commend the Minister for Health and Wellbeing for the amendment—although it is drafted in the Treasurer's name—regarding the definition of pharmacy, pharmacy services and pharmacy assistance as it relates to causing harm to or assaulting emergency workers. It is my firm view that this ought to be a permanent measure. I have had long discussions with the Pharmacy Guild. I think it is fair to say that, for the purposes of the provisions in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, they see no reason why their pharmacists, pharmacy assistants or the people who work within their services should be treated any differently to any other emergency worker. There is no question that the threats they face are the same, albeit perhaps less frequently than, say, our ambos, or whatever the case may be. There is certainly no question that they ought to be in there, so again I commend the Minister for Health and Wellbeing for seeing that through and ensuring its inclusion in this bill. In closing, I have to say that I do agree with the Leader of the Opposition. We on this side of the bench are also eagerly awaiting what the changes to the Emergency Management Act will look like, well ahead of the September expiry date. I think we have all outlined and canvassed our concerns around that thoroughly. Again, I remind the government that when it comes to those permanent changes I think it is only fair that we have as much time as possible to consider them before the next expiry. Although that does not form part of this bill, I think it is important to reiterate that. With those words, I indicate SA-Best's support for the second reading of the bill. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:07): I thank the honourable members for their indication of support for the bill. Bill read a second time. Committee Stage Committee Stage In committee. Clause 1. The Hon. T.A. FRANKS Legislative Council The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In terms of the second reading contribution from the government, there was a government amendment filed later on. While it is at clause 5, I am seeking to get background on why the government amendment was not in the original bill. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The only advice I can share is it was a decision taken in recent times by the Minister for Health to insert the amendment. It was not in the original draft of the proposer's bill, as the member has identified. The Hon. T.A. FRANKS Legislative Council The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In terms of clause 1 itself, in terms of this piece of legislation, with the references I raised this in my briefing. Many of the continuances of the AV measures have been described as supporting regional members of parliament. Could the Treasurer provide an update on the workings of the AV measures that are enabled by these ongoing COVID emergency measures? To clarify, my understanding is they are not just for regional members. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised the issue has been clarified with the parliamentary clerks and that both metropolitan-based and regional members have availed themselves of additional flexibility, but the advice has been it has predominantly been regionally-based members. The Hon. T.A. FRANKS Legislative Council The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The advice from whom? The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Parliamentary clerks. Clause passed. Clauses 2 to 5 passed. New clause 5A. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move: Amendment No 1 [Treasurer–1]— Page 4, after line 23—Insert: Part 3A—Amendment of Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 5A—Amendment of section 20AA—Causing harm to, or assaulting, certain emergency workers etc (1)	Section 20AA(9)—after the definition of human biological material insert: pharmacy has the same meaning as in Part 4 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010; pharmacy services has the same meaning as in Part 4 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010; (2)	Section 20AA(9), definition of prescribed emergency worker, (e)—delete 'medical practitioner, nurse, security officer or otherwise) performing duties in a hospital' and substitute: health practitioner, nurse, nurse practitioner, midwife, security officer or otherwise) performing duties in a hospital, or at any other place where medical treatment is provided or medical testing undertaken (however described, but including, without limiting this paragraph, a general practice, medical centre or other place at which people are vaccinated or screened for diseases) (3)	Section 20AA(9), definition of prescribed emergency worker—after paragraph (g) insert: (ga)	a person (whether a pharmacist, pharmacy assistant or otherwise) performing duties in a pharmacy; or (gb)	a person providing pharmacy services at a place other than a pharmacy, or a person assisting in the provision of such services; or I am advised the explanation is that this clause amends section 20AA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 to ensure that pharmacists, general practices and other health staff working on the frontline of testing for COVID-19 or treating COVID-19 are brought within the definition of 'prescribed emergency worker' for the purposes of that section. Our healthcare and emergency services workers are at the forefront of our state's COVID-19 response, keeping South Australians safe through frontline activities such as COVID-19 testing, treatment and enforcement activities. The state government takes workplace safety and protection of our frontline workers seriously and takes a zero tolerance approach to those who choose to cause harm to such workers. That is why we want to permanently protect pharmacists, general practices and other health staff working on the frontline through this amendment to ensure the strong penalties that already apply to emergency service worker assaults within the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 will continue to be extended to these workers, both during the COVID-19 pandemic response and more generally in undertaking their roles into the future. The amendment the government moves today seeks to include pharmacists, pharmacy assistants and persons performing duties in a pharmacy as well as medical practitioners, nurses or those otherwise performing duties at a place where medical treatment is provided or medical testing is undertaken within the definition of 'prescribed emergency worker' under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 to provide them with the same additional protection as other frontline health workers. This will include where these workers are performing duties within a general practice, medical centre or place in which people are screened or vaccinated for diseases, including COVID-19. For example, this change could be relevant for pharmacists and those performing duties in a pharmacy where they may be required to limit dispensing and sales of certain prescription and over-the-counter medicines in response to increased demand due to COVID-19. The Hon. T.A. FRANKS Legislative Council The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: As we make these measures permanent, but obviously under the emergency management provisions, how many times have they been used in their temporary form and in what categories? I will understand if you take that on notice, but if you could give us an indication of that to start with. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will take that question on notice. The Hon. T.A. FRANKS Legislative Council The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the Treasurer clarify whether or not this will cover, for example, those workers in a vaccination hub? The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised yes. The Hon. T.A. FRANKS Legislative Council The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Will it cover all workers in a vaccination hub? The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised yes. New clause inserted. Remaining clauses (6 to 23) passed. Schedule. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move: Amendment No 2 [Treasurer–1]— Page 11, after line 12 [Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 2]—Insert: (1a)	Schedule 2, Part A2—delete Part A2 I am advised that this amendment is consequential. Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed. Title. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move: Amendment No 3 [Treasurer–1]— Page 1—After 'Acts Interpretation Act 1915,' insert: the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, Amendment carried; title as amended passed. Bill reported with amendments. Third Reading Third Reading The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:18): I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Bill read a third time and passed.