Bills

COVID-19 Emergency Response (Expiry) (No 3) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 August 2021.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:20): I rise to speak on the bill and indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition. This bill seeks to extend the temporary emergency powers, particularly those related to directions given by the State Coordinator, until 1 December this year. The original bill had sought to extend these arrangements until 30 April next year, but this was amended in the other place. If there is a need for further extension, then parliament can consider this in its final weeks of sitting for this year.

As I have stated before when we have had bills before us that deal with COVID, the opposition has supported all of the government's legislative agenda in relation to making sure that people who need to have the powers to handle this pandemic, but it is disappointing that we find ourselves where we are and the manner in which we got here once again.

Like the shop trading hours debate in the last sitting week, it does feel somewhat like groundhog day. Firstly, the expiration of emergency powers approaches. Secondly, the government introduces a bill at the last second with virtually no notice. Thirdly, the opposition and crossbench question yet again why the government has not provided proper notice and proper briefings. Fourthly, the opposition and crossbench question why they still have not seen a bill to reform the emergency management laws that the Premier promised last year would be reformed to better handle pandemics. Finally, there is dead silence, and then we repeat the process all over again and again.

When this bill was brought into the other place, it was introduced so late that it was not even on the legislation website so that members of the public could read it before it was going to be debated in the other place. This is not a way to govern and it is certainly not a way to govern properly during a pandemic.

With those words, I indicate that the opposition will support the bill as it was amended sensibly in the other place and look forward to passing this bill. The opposition does hope that the government may have learnt some lessons and that, as we approach the end of this year and the end of the parliamentary sittings this year, if the government wishes to further extend this legislation it might give more than one or two days' notice and respect and courtesy to other members of this parliament.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:22): I rise on behalf of the Greens to support the COVID-19 Emergency Response (Expiry) (No 3) Amendment Bill before us today. I note that the Greens have, as the opposition has, by and large supported all of the COVID emergency provisions, be they standalone acts or amendments to acts or suspensions of the usual way of doing things. We know that we are in a pandemic. The world is facing quite particular challenges and South Australia, while we have been fortunate, I believe in many ways we have made that luck through a good, strong public health system, by listening to the science and following the advice of the experts.

I do believe there has been great leadership across the board. I also note that there have often been mistakes. This is the nature of a pandemic, and I think it is to be expected and accepted to a certain level. However, we can always do things better. We can learn as we go. While we are so far into this pandemic, I do not believe that we need to continue to accept last minute or rushed or non-consultative arrangements.

I have tabled and filed two amendments. One seeks to specify that the nature of the debate in the other place was to ensure that, with regard to the Transition Committee—which I note is not a statutory authority, as was noted in the debate in the other place, but that that committee, which was originally called the restoration committee but is now called the Transition Committee, in essence is a bureaucratic committee but charged with transitioning us and easing restrictions where they have been applied and seeing us come through this pandemic—the regional representative that the other place has ensured sits on that body be someone who has knowledge of and interest in matters affecting the communities close to the South Australian border.

We know that we are a federation, we know that more than ever. I remember studying at various levels civics education and learning about the history of federation and never knowing just quite how important those state and territory borders would become at the time of such a challenge as now to our family lives, to our professional lives and to our lives in general. As we know, the border closures or the border restrictions have kept family members away from other family members, have restricted employment opportunities and have had some quite distressing outcomes for some individuals and groups of people.

We know that we have an exemption committee, as well as a need to ensure that our state keeps those within its borders safe, so having someone on the Transition Committee with an expertise, a knowledge and a connection to the border communities, which I believe have done it pretty tough in a way that often they have found unfair. Certainly, when usually you can go to work across the border, some of your family live on one side and others live on the other side of a border and it is simply a line on a map that is largely theoretical and it suddenly becomes a hard border, is quite a shake up to those people's lives.

I commend the member for Mount Gambier and the member for MacKillop for raising these issues. They provided information, both in that debate in the other place and the member for MacKillop to the select committee that was established by this upper house, with regard to the impact those restrictions have had on the border communities.

I well recall the number of tests some people living in those border communities had in the early days to pass those borders, bringing out nose bleeds and other health flow-ons, and the lack of ability for people to go to school or to undertake work. They were losing business. Certainly, the bubbles have been a welcome addition as this pandemic has unfolded, but having somebody there at that border connection will go some way to improving the deliberations of the Transition Committee.

Further, I have also sought an amendment with regard to those meetings of the Transition Committee that the minutes be made available to the COVID-19 Response Committee of this Legislative Council within 10 days after the meeting. I note that in the previous debate on this bill there had been some media talk that they would start to release those minutes more regularly to the upper house select committee charged with oversight of this pandemic.

That has not come to fruition, and some six months later, after those few words in the media and in the debate in this chamber specifically from government ministers that those minutes would become more available, we are still waiting for them. I will have more to say on that when I move that amendment, and I know that my colleague the Hon. Robert Simms will have much to say with regard to the extension of the eviction moratorium, one of the other protections we have seen South Australia do quite well in in terms of our response to this emergency.

The reality is that in a public health emergency South Australians have been very compliant, South Australians have listened to the advice and South Australians have wanted to do the right thing, but it is very difficult to do the right thing if you do not know where you are going to be living next week, if you do not know whether you are going to have work next week and if you do not know—if you lose your house or your job—whether you will be able to pay your bills and put food on the table. That certainty is part of the social contract that this government needs to understand in that fine balance.

We also know that the physical health and mental health of South Australians has taken a real pounding under this pandemic, and those measures, I think, need to be cognisant of the mental, physical and spiritual health of South Australians. We will have all grieved loss in this time, we will all have had missed opportunities or unexpected outcomes. Many of us who were told, 'We are all in this together,' will know that those of us in this place are probably in a far more sturdy boat on the ocean that is the pandemic than many who are in life rafts or, indeed, clinging to little bits of metaphorical wood in this large flood.

With those few words, I commend the bill. We understand that in the other place it was amended for that December time frame rather than the anticipated April one that the government originally put forward. Possibly I would have gone for a January time frame, but I am happy to accept the December decision of the other place and to get on with this today.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:31): I rise also to speak very briefly on the bill. As we know and other members have mentioned, the act is due to expire on 17 September. According to health authorities, the threat of another outbreak in South Australia is still very real, and that is not about to change. I think it is against this backdrop that we are all trying to navigate a path forward. We all know that there are varying and even diverging views as to what that path should look like, even amongst the various states and territories.

As far as this bill is concerned, most of the provisions, as we know, of the original act have now expired or been dealt with through permanent measures, which leaves us only with the extension of the powers of the State Coordinator to make directions for the most part. In that regard, I echo the sentiments of the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Tammy Franks, noting our support in the past for the measures that have been introduced to date.

It has been the commissioner's ability to respond swiftly and decisively to previous outbreaks that I think everyone agrees has kept us so well protected in SA. Given the continued threat of the COVID-19 virus, it is sensible to extend those powers until the first day of December. Like the Hon. Tammy Franks, whether it was December or January would have made little difference to us, but we certainly were reluctant to support a measure that would have seen it through to April because we know, should yet another extension be required, that a fourth bill can come to this place and indeed will need to come to this place at the end of October.

We have no problem with that. That is what we are here for but, as other members have pointed out, I think it is only fair that we have ample opportunity to consider those proposals. I think the original proposal for a 225-day extension, which was rejected by the lower house, was an overreach and a more palatable date has been substituted in its place.

The bill before us also contains special provisions relating to the Transition Committee, the inclusion of a regional representative and prompt briefing requirements following changes to directions or requirements. It also specifies a response time for SA Health to deal with exemption applications. I am sure we have all done our fair share of supporting constituents to navigate the SA Health exemption pathway, within the boundaries, of course, of what is allowed.

Delays do seem to be a matter of course. I can absolutely appreciate how frustrating it has been for many people who have been and continue to be stuck at the border with no reply, with no idea when they can return home or relocate to South Australia or see their loved ones again.

Twenty-one days is a sensible and realistic time frame, I would have thought, but, again, I will probably have more to say on that during the committee stage of this debate. I note the Hon. Robert Simms has introduced amendments that more or less mirror those he had on file in relation to the previous bill, and we are conscious and remain conscious that the Residential Tenancies Act already contains hardship provisions which would continue to act as a safety net in any event. That said, we are also conscious of the fact that the mover has provided us with ample evidence of a very real need for continued protection.

On the flipside, we continue to have concerns for landlords, especially mum-and-dad landlords, who have also been hit hard by the impacts of COVID-19, not to mention all the businesses that have been hit extraordinarily hard, but in this regard we are talking specifically about landlords. This is difficult for everybody and the reality is that we are yet to see any real dataset from the government in relation to those cases despite having asked for them previously, so we have effectively been left to take them at their word that the numbers are very low, when the issues that seem to come into our offices paint a very different picture.

Given the continued threat of a new outbreak leaking from interstate, and we know that is a very real reality, we are again open to a compromise in the short term with a view to considering what the long-term measures will be. We have not given our rubber stamp to indefinite measures but we are certainly open to reconsidering those again when we are back here in December reconsidering this.

In terms of the other amendments that are on file—and I will do this now, I will not do it during the committee stage—the Hon. Tammy Franks has sought, as I understand it, to clarify criteria for the regional representative of the Transition Committee to ensure that they are truly representative, and is also looking to compel openness and transparency from the Transition Committee through the provision of minutes of the meetings of the COVID-19 Response Committee. I am also a member of the COVID-19 emergency response committee, and I think it is fair to say that these amendments seek to address the frustrations that the committee has had in terms of accessing those documents.

Again, we are supportive of those amendments in principle. With those brief words, we look forward to the next stage of the bill, noting that the next 10-day time frame until the expiry requires us to deal with it this week, and I understand preferably today. With those words, I indicate my support on behalf of SA-Best for this bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:38): I thank honourable members for their contributions to the second reading and broad support for the further consideration of the bill and the consideration of various amendments that have been filed during the committee stage of the debate.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My questions are around exemptions in particular. In terms of applications for exemptions, how many currently are in play with SA Health of South Australians who are unable to return to South Australia due to the current restrictions?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not have that information. I would have to take that on notice.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I understand to apply for exemptions that a 1800 or a similar number is given and that there are various ways of contacting the exemptions committee to apply for exemptions. Can the Treasurer outline how somebody calls that number or makes that contact if they are overseas?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, I do not have that sort of detail. My advice is that the operations of the exemptions process to which the honourable member is directing questions are not directly impacted by the legislation that we have before us. I am happy to take the honourable member's question on notice and see what answer I can provide to her.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I would imagine extending the powers that we currently have in this pandemic are indeed directly related to those who seek these exemptions to come back to South Australia for one reason or another. In terms of the Transition Committee, how many meetings has there been and on what dates in the last six months?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, I do not have that information here, but on that particular one we can certainly get, as I understand it, information in relation to the dates of the meetings. By public revelation they appear to meet generally once a week, sometimes twice a week, but generally once a week and on most occasions, I think, they or one of them makes a public statement after the meeting in relation to what, if anything, might have transpired at the meeting. In terms of listing all of the meetings in the last six months and the precise dates of those, that is not something I have current advice on.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The Treasurer, I suspect, will have to take this on notice, but are there—is a number of about 4,500 applications for travel exemptions back to SA at this current time approximately correct, and what extra resources has the Treasurer offered or made available to process travel exemption applications?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, as I said to the Hon. Ms Franks, I do not have the advice in relation to the number of exemptions, either exactly or an approximation, so I cannot help the honourable member in relation to that. My understanding is, I thought a number of these questions were pursued in the parliamentary oversight committee of the COVID exemptions committee where officers who manage these particular issues are directly able to respond to questions from members of parliament. I am not in a position to guess or estimate the number of exemptions that might be currently being processed.

In relation to resources, again as I have answered on a number of previous occasions, we provide an overall budget—that is, we being the taxpayers—of about $7.4 billion to the health department and they manage the competing priorities in the health system within that particular budget. On occasions over the last 18 months they have come back to the budget and asked for additional resources, again for a generic nature—occasionally for a specific purpose but generally for a generic nature.

We have tended to manage most of those at the time of the budget or the Mid-Year Budget Review. There have been occasional circumstances in between the budget or the Mid-Year Budget review that we have been asked for additional resources. I think the general answer to resourcing all of the COVID-related expenditures within health is that we provide an overall budget.

We provided an aggregate sum, which I think was identified in the budget papers as additional COVID-related funding for the health department. By and large, they manage the COVID response within that aggregate budget plus the additional resourcing we provided in the most recent budget. If circumstances arise—we hope they do not—where significant new expenditure is required, we have indicated that we will provide, within reason, whatever funding is required to save as many lives as we can in managing the COVID pandemic.

Clause passed.

New clause 1A.

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

Amendment No 1 [Simms–1]—

Page 2, after line 5—Insert:

1A—Commencement

(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act comes into operation on the day on which it is assented to by the Governor.

(2) Section 3A is taken to have come into operation on 2 September 2021 (immediately after the expiry of sections 8, 9 and 10 of the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act 2020 pursuant to the COVID-19 Emergency Response Residential Tenancies, Residential Parks and Supported Residential Facilities Expiry Notice 2021 (see Gazette 20 May 2021 p.1434)).

If it pleases the Chair, I will make some general remarks about the three amendments in their totality rather than standing up and speaking on each individually. As foreshadowed by my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks MLC, what these amendments are seeking to do is reinstate the provisions relating to the moratorium on rental evictions and rent increases for those who are experiencing financial hardship as a result of COVID-19.

By way of background, members may recall that, when I started in this place in May, this was one of the first bills that came before me and the rest of this chamber for consideration. At that time, I argued for the provisions to be extended for another 12 months, up until May 2022. The Legislative Council did not agree to that; however, the government did agree to a September extension and I certainly welcomed that.

But now, as I warned at the time, we are in the situation where these provisions have expired. Indeed, they expired on 1 September so there is nothing in place, and I am very concerned, the Greens are very concerned, about the plight of people who are experiencing financial distress at the moment, in particular people who are renting. We have had lots of queries from the community to our office about this.

We know that there is significant rental stress being experienced in the community. We know that we are in the middle of a rental affordability crisis in South Australia because there is not enough affordable housing available. People who are renting are finding it really difficult to find accommodation, which means of course that it is vitally important that we do not see people being evicted in the middle of this economic crisis.

To give the chamber a bit of an insight into some of the experiences of our constituents, I have been given some information from the Anti-Poverty Network in South Australia. They have shared some testimonies with me from people who are experiencing rental stress. These are de-identified, but I will read some of the stories onto Hansard because I think it is important that members get some of this information in terms of understanding the importance of these provisions. In terms of the impact of rent increases, this is what one person reported:

Once my rent has been paid I have $50 left for a fortnight to pay…electricity, gas, food, petrol, and other costs such as medication, as I suffer from lung conditions. The amount I have left is seriously not realistic, it is not enough to live on, let alone eat. The stress of enduring this each and every day has taken a toll on my emotional and physical wellbeing.

Another has said:

I have three daughters, [one] 9 [another] 2 and [another] almost 2, it stresses me to no end wondering if I'll be able to afford to feed them after paying rent. We've had our power disconnected so many times I've lost count, just because I pay rent first. Once in particular, it was cut off at 5pm, when our youngest was still a newborn.

Another says:

My partner and I can only afford to pay rent because we are splitting costs with my two adult children, who too cannot afford to rent on their own. We, and they, are stuck co-renting even though they would like to have their own place, and my partner and I would enjoy living our lives without adult children.

Of course, we know that is becoming all too common—the scenario of ageing parents having younger adult children coming to live with them, something I am sure is not desirable for many parents as well as their children. As much as I love my mum and dad, I would not enjoy bunking up with them and I know that is the situation for many in the community. But alas, that is the situation they find themselves in because of this rental affordability crisis. Another says:

I have to meal plan all the way down to pieces of fruit to meet nutritional guidelines for my kids. I often go without so my kids can have what they need. we never go out. Every cent is spent on living costs.

Finally, another constituent has said:

I pay $350 a week for a house that's falling apart and I'm to scared to say anything in case I end up homeless with 3 kids—1 being newborn.

These are just some of the stories of people who are experiencing financial stress, people who are renting and will be hard hit if these provisions are not extended.

Just to talk very briefly about the exact nature of what I am proposing here in terms of the amendments, members will note the reference to backdating the provisions so they would take effect from 2 September, because the measures expired on 1 September. So it would apply to people from that period up until the end of December. As I stated from the outset, it is certainly my preference and that of the Greens that the provisions be extended up until May, but I recognise that there was not the support to do that and that is why I am proposing December.

These provisions are aligned with the other elements of the bill and, to the Hon. Connie Bonaros' point, I think this is a fair compromise and one that would certainly give people who are experiencing financial hardship some confidence and some security as we head into the second half of the year, recognising that we are still very much in the throes of this pandemic and the associated economic crisis.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes this amendment. The effect of amendment No. 1, along with the other amendments to be moved, is to reinstate the residential tenancies, residential parks and supported residential facilities provisions previously included in the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act 2020. These provisions (sections 8, 9 and 10) expired on 1 September 2021. The proposed amendments seek to backdate their expiry to 2 September 2021 to give the effect that they never expired.

The purpose of these provisions was to protect tenants experiencing financial difficulty during the pandemic. SACAT could make orders to prevent evictions beyond 90 days, and provisions were also included to prevent rental increases. When the bill was last considered by the Legislative Council and crossbench, the government reached an agreement to push out the plan expiry date of 30 June until September.

This amendment is opposed, as I said. The government's position is consistent with advice from SACAT that the provisions are no longer necessary and are being relied on far less now than they were at the beginning of the pandemic. SACAT advise that the standard period of 90 days is sufficient to deal with the applications it hears. SACAT is generally uncomfortable with suspending possession for more than 90 days unless the tenant's circumstances are extreme.

In considering these amendments, it is important to bear in mind the impact on landlords. Landlords are not necessarily large corporations but may be small retired couples who have invested in residential properties to support their retirement. The reintroduction of these provisions would not appropriately balance their interests.

One of the principal concerns in the residential tenancy market in South Australia at the moment is the shortage of properties available. Under the Residential Tenancies Act, SACAT may already consider hardship that may be caused to a tenant arising from difficulties in finding a new tenancy. A tenant can present evidence of unsuccessful applications for multiple tenancies, which SACAT can consider when deciding whether or not to defer eviction.

In the case of the supported residential facilities, I have been informed that the provisions of the COVID act have not been used. Residents of these facilities are generally not evicted due to financial difficulties, as they are on a disability support or aged-care pension. Similar provisions in other states have expired, except for New South Wales and the ACT, which now have a moratorium for evictions. Queensland's transitional provisions will expire this month. We also have other initiatives in place to assist residential tenants, including concessions on land tax.

South Australia is in a different position to New South Wales and the ACT. With the anticipated increase in vaccination rates and the considerable impact these provisions have on landlords, the reinstatement of sections 8, 9 and 10 is considered unnecessary. Importantly, SACAT still has the power to prevent evictions for a period of 90 days under the Residential Tenancies Act 1995. Tenants are adequately protected from eviction, and the suffering that results from the COVID-19 pandemic can still be considered by SACAT when making these orders.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might make a quick contribution. When a similar amendment was before us last time this bill was presented to the chamber, we did not vote with the Hon. Robert Simms on that occasion. We did note that the government had given an undertaking that these particular provisions would not be expired until September, which the government duly honoured. On that basis, we voted against it last time.

We have had much discussion about this. I am a bit concerned with some of what we have heard from the Treasurer. The Treasurer has said that applications have slowed down so these provisions do not have much work to do—he has not said they have no work to do—but then the Treasurer says that they have a significant impost on landlords.

I remain a bit confused as to how you can say they do not have much to do but in the same breath say they have a significant impost on landlords. Either they do not have much work to do therefore they do not have a significant impost on landlords, or there is at least some work for these provisions to do and they will have a small impact on landlords.

We are minded to support the Hon. Robert Simms' measures on this occasion. Given that we do not have that backstop, if you like, of the government not expiring provisions, they will expire. If the government can give a guarantee or an undertaking that there is no work for these provisions to do, potentially that there are no tenants who still might be suffering as a result of COVID, then we are prepared to reconsider, but unless the government can do that we are minded to support the Hon. Robert Simms' amendments on this occasion.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Does any other member wish to make a contribution? It would be helpful to hear from the crossbench, as we have not reached 11 votes yet.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have already indicated in my second reading contribution that we will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will not be supporting this amendment.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 11

Noes 8

Majority 3

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

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

Amendment No 2 [Simms–1]—

Page 2, after line 11—Insert:

(1) Section 6(1)(a)(i)—after 'Part 2' insert '(other than sections 8, 9 and 10)'

As this is consequential, I will not rehash the arguments.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We accept the fact that this is part of a package that we have lost, but we again repeat the government's opposition to the package of amendments.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 3A.

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

Amendment No 3 [Simms–1]—

Page 2, after line 13—Insert:

3A—Reinsertion of expired sections

After the heading to Part 2 insert:

8—Provisions applying to residential tenancies

(1) Subject to this section, the operation of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 is modified as follows:

(a) the terms of any residential tenancy agreement will be taken to be modified to such extent necessary to give effect to the modifications made by this section;

(b) the landlord must not increase the rent payable under a residential tenancy agreement (whether under section 55 of that Act or otherwise) if the tenant is suffering financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;

(c) despite any other provision of that Act, or any other Act or law, an act or omission of the tenant required under the laws of the State in response to the COVID-19 pandemic will be taken not to amount to a breach of a residential tenancy agreement or otherwise amount to grounds for termination of the agreement;

(d) a tenant may have repairs carried out on the premises (in accordance with any agreement with the landlord relating to such repairs) without seeking prior approval (and section 68(3)(e) and (5) of that Act will be taken to apply to costs or compensation incurred by or owing to the tenant accordingly);

(e) section 78A of that Act will be taken not to apply in respect of—

(i) a breach of a residential tenancy agreement consisting of a failure to pay rent where the tenant is suffering financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic; or

(ii) any act or omission of the tenant required under the laws of the State in response to the COVID-19 pandemic;

(f) a residential tenancy cannot be terminated under that Act solely on the grounds of a breach of a residential tenancy agreement consisting of a failure to pay rent where the tenant is suffering financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;

(g) the Tribunal cannot terminate a residential tenancy or make an order for possession of the premises in respect of a breach of a residential tenancy agreement consisting of a failure to pay rent where the tenant is suffering financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;

(h) on an application under section 89 of that Act relating to financial hardship suffered as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tribunal may, instead of or in addition to an order terminating the agreement, make such orders as the Tribunal thinks fit;

(i) on an application under section 89 of that Act, as modified by paragraph (h), the Tribunal must have particular regard to the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic (including the need to ameliorate the effects of the pandemic in the State and the need to avoid homelessness during such a public health emergency);

(j) despite any other Act or law, the Tribunal may, on application or otherwise in proceedings under that Act, make any order it considers appropriate in the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic (including an order that specified costs associated with the termination of a residential tenancy agreement be reduced or waived);

(k) the Tribunal, on an application under section 93 of that Act (whether the application was made before or after the commencement of this section)—

(i) must have regard to the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic (including the need to ameliorate the effects of the pandemic in the State and the need to avoid homelessness during such a public health emergency); and

(ii) may, in a case where a tenant is suffering financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite section 93(4)(a), suspend the operation of an order under that section for such period, and on such conditions, as the Tribunal thinks fit; and

(iii) may, in a case where a tenant is suffering financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite section 93(4a), modify a residential tenancy agreement during such a period of suspended operation so as to reduce the tenant's immediate financial obligations under the agreement;

(l) the Tribunal may, in relation to an order made under section 93(4)(a) of that Act before the commencement of this section, on an application by a tenant or landlord, further suspend the operation of the order for possession if the tenant is suffering financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;

(m) the preceding paragraphs will be taken to apply in relation to a rooming house agreement under that Act (where a reference in a preceding paragraph to a provision of that Act will be taken to be a reference to a provision of a corresponding kind under Part 7 of that Act);

(n) despite any other Act or law, the Tribunal must not make an order requiring interest to be paid on an amount payable by a tenant under a residential tenancy agreement;

(o) despite a provision of any other Act or law, an order of the Tribunal contemplated by a preceding paragraph may have retrospective effect;

(p) section 99(4) of that Act does not apply in circumstances where the tenant, or another person lawfully residing in the premises, is self-isolating because they have, or may have, COVID-19;

(q) section 115 of that Act will be taken not to apply to an agreement or arrangement required by this section or otherwise required to give effect to this section;

(r) the following matters must not be recorded on a residential tenancies database:

(i) a matter consisting of, or relating to, a failure to pay rent due where the tenant is suffering financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;

(ii) any other matter that the Tribunal orders not to be so recorded;

(iii) any other matter prescribed by the regulations.

(2) A purported termination or other action in contravention of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (as modified by this section) will be taken to be void and of no effect.

(3) A provision of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 not referred to in a preceding subsection will be taken to be modified to the extent necessary to give effect to the modifications set out in this section.

(4) The Tribunal may, on application by a landlord or tenant under a residential tenancy agreement (whether or not the agreement is still in force), make such of the following orders as the Tribunal thinks fit:

(a) an order modifying or suspending any prescribed order of the Tribunal made during the prescribed period in relation to a residential tenancy period;

(b) an order confirming, varying or quashing any prescribed action done, or purportedly done, by a landlord under the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 in respect of a residential tenancy agreement during the prescribed period;

(c) any other order the Tribunal thinks appropriate to address the consequences of the retrospective commencement of this section.

(5) An application under subsection (4) must be made within 28 days after the commencement of this section (or such longer period as the Tribunal may allow).

(6) In making orders under this section, the Tribunal must have regard to the intended effect of the operation of this section as it relates to matters of the relevant kind.

(7) Section 111 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 applies in relation to orders under this section.

(8) To avoid doubt, the jurisdiction conferred by this section comes within the original jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

(9) Subject to any regulations under section 20, an order of the Tribunal under this section will be taken to be revoked on the day on which this section expires.

(10) In this section, a reference to the payment of rent will be taken to include a reference to the payment of an amount relating to water supply and usage.

(11) A term or phrase used in this section will, unless the contrary intention appears, have the same meaning as in the Residential Tenancies Act 1995.

(12) In this section—

prescribed action, by a landlord, means an action taken by the landlord that would, if it occurred after the commencement of this section, contravene the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (as modified by this section);

prescribed order means an order of the Tribunal made, or having effect, during the prescribed period;

prescribed period means the period commencing on 30 March 2020 and ending on 9 April 2020.

9—Provisions applying to residential parks

(1) The operation of the Residential Parks Act 2007 is modified such that the modifications made by section 8 to the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (including, to avoid doubt, the provisions of section 8 relating to the Tribunal) apply in relation to the Residential Parks Act 2007 as if a reference in that section to a residential tenancy agreement were a reference to a residential park tenancy agreement, residential park site agreement or residential park agreement (as the case requires).

(2) A purported termination or other action in contravention of the Residential Parks Act 2007 (as modified by this section) will be taken to be void and of no effect.

(3) A term or phrase used in this section will, unless the contrary intention appears, have the same meaning as in the Residential Parks Act 2007.

10—Provisions applying to supported residential facilities

(1) Subject to this section, the operation of the Supported Residential Facilities Act 1992 is modified as follows:

(a) a proprietor cannot take any other action under that Act for the purpose of terminating a resident contract, where—

(i) the grounds for termination are a failure of the resident to pay fees and charges under the resident contract; and

(ii) the resident is suffering financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;

(b) a proprietor cannot increase fees and charges payable in relation to a resident contract;

(c) a resident will be taken not to have breached a term of a resident contract or other agreement by complying with a direction or law relating to the COVID-19 pandemic that applies to or regulates residents of supported residential facilities;

(d) a proprietor must not give a notice to a resident under section 39 of that Act that purports to be notice of a proposed termination on grounds of failure to pay fees or charges if the resident is suffering financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;

(e) a proprietor cannot make an application under section 43 of that Act in relation to a dispute consisting of a failure to pay fees and charges if the resident is suffering financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (and, to avoid doubt, a licensing authority cannot make orders under that section on an application relating to any other kind of dispute that purports to terminate a resident contract or otherwise require payment of fees and charges in relation to such a resident);

(f) the Tribunal must not, on a review under section 44 of that Act, make an order that purports to terminate a resident contract or otherwise require a resident to pay fees and charges to the proprietor if the resident is suffering financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;

(g) the operation of section 47 of that Act is modified such that—

(i) a visit or attendance by a person will only fall within the ambit of that section if it complies with any direction or law applying to or regulating such visits or attendances; and

(ii) a person does not commit an offence under section 47(2) if the person is acting in accordance with a direction or law referred to in subparagraph (i);

(h) section 50 of that Act will be taken not to apply to an agreement or arrangement required by this section or otherwise required to give effect to this section;

(j) a proprietor will be taken not to commit an offence against that Act, or breach a term of a licence or resident contract or other agreement, to the extent that an act or omission of the proprietor is reasonably required to give effect to the modification made by this section, or by any direction or law relating to the COVID-19 pandemic that applies to or regulates supported residential facilities;

(k) the Tribunal or a licensing authority, in performing a function or exercising a power under that Act, must have regard to the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic (including the need to ameliorate the effects of the pandemic in the State and the need to avoid homelessness during such a public health emergency).

(2) For the purposes of this section, a reference to fees and charges payable in relation to a resident contract will be taken to include a reference to any costs (however described) payable by a resident under the resident contract (whether for accommodation, personal care services or otherwise).

(3) A term or phrase used in this section will, unless the contrary intention appears, have the same meaning as in the Supported Residential Facilities Act 1992.

This is consequential.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, we accept that it is consequential and we remain opposed.

New clause inserted.

Clause 4.

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

Amendment No 1 [Franks–3]—

Page 3, after line 9 [clause 4, inserted section 25A]—After subsection (1) insert:

(1a) The regional representative must be a person who has knowledge of, and interest in, matters affecting communities located close to the South Australian border.

This at clause 4 inserts, after the requirement with regard to the Transition Committee membership:

1(a) The regional representative must be a person who has knowledge of, and interest in, matters affecting communities located close to the South Australian border.

As I outlined in my second reading speech and certainly asked in the briefing on this bill, I was keen to ensure that this person has close contact, knowledge of and connection to those border communities because in terms of the decisions of the Transition Committee they are the communities that have had particular needs that were raised by the member for MacKillop and the member for Mount Gambier in championing this particular provision.

I noted those impacts, certainly the border bubbles have gone some way, but I note that in Victoria, for example, the government there has gone out of its way to empower commissioners and advocates for those communities in a way that has not happened in South Australia. I think this measure will ensure the government shows its true commitment to those communities.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised the government is opposing this particular amendment. Clause 4 of the bill inserts new section 25A in the Emergency Management Act to require a member of the Transition Committee to include a regional representative tasked with representing the interests of persons living in areas outside metropolitan Adelaide.

This amendment No. 1 inserts new section 25A(4) to require representatives to have knowledge affecting communities located close to the South Australian border. The government's view is that the amendment is not necessary. It is implicit that the regional representative will have knowledge of regional communities, which include those close to the border of South Australia.

I am minded to comment that the phrase 'close to the border of South Australia' obviously includes the South Australian borders with Western Australia, I assume, the Northern Territory, New South Wales and Victoria. I think most of the debate in relation to this particular amendment when it was originated in the House of Assembly pertained to the border communities between South Australia and Victoria, in particular in God's own country, the South-East of South Australia.

There has been recent obvious debate in relation to the Riverland and Broken Hill connections as well, but they are located close to the South Australian border of course. That does include the border with Western Australia and the Northern Territory, as well as the ones that might have been the subject of much of the debate in another place on an earlier occasion. For the reasons I have outlined, the government's position is to oppose this particular amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: For the benefit of the council and those who have actually acquainted themselves with the debate in the other place, in fact it was the Attorney-General who raised the issue that these affected indeed the seats of Flinders and Giles just as much and that those communities deserved similar representation as those that were advocated for by the member for MacKillop and the member for Mount Gambier. Indeed, the border issues have been somewhat of a problem in all of those particular jurisdictions, contrary to what the Treasurer has just seemed to inform us.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have a couple of questions about this, but before the questions I might reiterate a comment from the Hon. Tammy Franks: this is not just about the South-East. I know that certainly in some remote areas of our state where our border comes up against the Northern Territory and Western Australia, particularly in remote Aboriginal communities, there have been significant problems at different times of year when their cultural ceremonies take place that for tens of thousands of years have not had a line on a map that you cannot cross. That has proved exceptionally difficult.

I know this was the case during last summer with that interaction between the Northern Territory and Western Australia, particularly in the APY lands and the Maralinga Tjarutja lands, but there was much debate in the other place about the effect on the South-East, and I want to pay tribute to those brave patriots, the members for Mount Gambier and MacKillop, for representing their community. In fact, it is no small thing to cross the floor against a party and that is what the member for MacKillop did in defence and support of his community. These are serious issues that people have taken very seriously.

My question to the government is: on this particular amendment can the government see any potential harm it could do?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I cannot predict harm or otherwise in relation to—well, I think we all predict harm in relation to COVID-19, but in relation to particular provisions in the legislation I am not in a position to share my prognostications on harm or otherwise in relation to the crafting of this particular amendment. A version of it passed the House of Assembly. A version of it would appear likely to pass the Legislative Council. It will be what it will be and we will need to see what happens.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Final question, either for the mover of the amendment or for the government: do we know what the views of those who supported the first part of this amendment in the lower house, the members for MacKillop or Mount Gambier, are on this particular amendment?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I do know that the member for MacKillop has texted me during the second reading speech, thanking me for my kind words. I suspect, having had them raise these issues with me as Chair of the COVID-19 oversight committee, they will be very pleased to have firmed this up. When I asked the government advisers a question about this particular change in my briefing, I asked specifically, 'So what's to stop you putting somebody from Kangaroo Island on?' and they said, 'Nothing.'

I understand from the Hansard of the debate in the other place that the member for Mount Gambier was told that they would be offered names, if you like, of this person, and while I do somewhat trust that, I do not completely trust that. In terms of some of the questions that were taken on notice in the other place by the member for Kaurna, I note that none of them were answered in the second reading debate summing-up here, so I am not going to take the government's word for it at this stage.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the sake of the efficient running of this committee, I can indicate, on the basis of the answers that have been given, that the opposition will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 2 [Franks–3]—

Page 3, after line 24 [clause 4, inserted section 25A]—After subsection (3) insert:

(4) The committee referred to in subsection (1) must ensure that minutes of any meeting of the committee are provided to the COVID-19 Response Committee of the Legislative Council within 10 days after the meeting.

I draw the attention of members of the council to this being the third set of filed amendments and that the 48 hours that I asked for in the original set, through some consultation with the Attorney and her staff, has been adopted and adapted by me into this amendment and a third set saying '10 days', which I understood to be more palatable to the government in terms of support.

I note that back in May, when we debated this bill, there had been media murmurings and public statements made that the Transition Committee would indeed be making its minutes available to the COVID-19 Response Committee. Since that time, since March in fact, well before May, we have yet to receive any minutes whatsoever. This is despite not one, not two, not three, not four but five sets of correspondence seeking such transparency from the Transition Committee sent by our dutiful secretaries to that committee. We are still waiting. The last piece of correspondence and communication was on 3 September, when in fact we resorted not just to the secretariat of the committee but to going through DPC, and we are still waiting for a response from that, beyond 6 September.

I note in the other place the member for Kaurna asked several questions, but one of them was the same question in relation to the Transition Committee as well: could we get the dates of those meetings? In particular, the member for Kaurna was interested in which meetings the Premier or his delegate or any ministers had attended of the Transition Committee. The very same question I asked today, at the time the Attorney stated in relation to the Transition Committee, 'I am not sure, but we will certainly again take that on notice.'

Certainly, there was a discussion in the other place that between the houses we would be provided with this information. We were not provided with this information. I asked again at clause 1 of this bill. Apparently, it was all news to the Treasurer and he did not seem to think that would be something that he might be asked at this particular junction.

Regarding the transparency of the Transition Committee to the oversight committee of the parliament that the parliament has duly set up in these quite extraordinary times, where our democracy is somewhat strained and certainly put under some significant pressures of the normal robust requirements that one might have, I think it is not too much to ask the Transition Committee to give the parliamentary oversight committee those minutes within 10 days of those meetings occurring.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: At the outset I indicate that I would like to, on behalf of government members, publicly thank the members of the Transition Committee for the outstanding job they have done in helping to keep South Australia safe over the last 18 months. The fact that we in South Australia enjoy a record almost second to none around the world in terms of the way we have managed the COVID-19 pandemic is, I think, in part testimony to the decision-making and the leadership that the Transition Committee has taken and also, of course, the very strong leadership of the Premier and the government in relation to the issue. I know from the many Teams meetings and Zoom meetings I have with the poor unfortunate souls from Sydney and Melbourne and other parts of Australia that they look on with envy at the way our Transition Committee and others have helped manage COVID-19.

In relation to the last series of questions the honourable member raised, as has been publicly identified on a number of occasions, the Premier and ministers are not members of the Transition Committee. I am advised that the only occasion when the Premier attended a meeting of the Transition Committee was right at the outset when he thanked the members of the committee. The questions that the member for Kaurna or someone asked about how many meetings the Premier and the minister or ministerial advisers attended misses the publicly stated position on any number of occasions as to who members of the Transition Committee are, and they do not include the Premier and they do not include ministers.

To ask the question, therefore, of how many meetings people attended in the interests of transparency and accountability seems to be missing the point. I think that is a relatively easy question to answer for anyone who has been following the public debate over the last 18 months in relation to the operation of the Transition Committee.

In relation to the amendments just moved, I think, by the Hon. Ms Franks—[Franks-3]—which now includes circulating minutes not more than 10 days after the conclusion of the meeting, I am advised that the government is supporting that particular amendment. The advice I have been provided with is that, as a result of recent questioning about this particular issue, the government or in particular the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, I am told, was going to be proactively disclosing minutes of Transition Committee meetings to the general public—not just to the COVID oversight committee—within 10 days from each meeting date. It was expected that this regime would commence in approximately two weeks.

There is a further explanation there as to why the 48-hour period would not work but I will not go into the details as to why the 48-hour period would not work because the honourable member's amendment is now for a period of not more than 10 days, and the government is prepared to support that particular amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am well aware that the Premier nor any of his ministers are members of the Transition Committee. In fact, the question by the member for Kaurna was to see if they had attended. One would expect that they would be attending if they were members. The interest was: had they attended? Indeed, people who are not members of the Transition Committee do attend the Transition Committee and I think it is of public interest to know who gets to be in the room where those decisions are made.

The number of meetings and the times of those meetings was then the ancillary question that the member for Kaurna asked, which I repeated today, and got no answer. I look forward to the Transition Committee providing members of the South Australian public the information that we have sought for so long in the oversight committee, and I am certainly looking forward to better informed debate as a result.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:20): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.