Parliamentary Committees

COVID-19 Response Committee

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:03): I move:

That the third interim report of the select committee be noted.

In terms of the COVID-19 Response Committee, it has been a committee of this Legislative Council since the early days of the pandemic. It has been my honour and privilege to Chair it and I certainly think it has been a most valuable asset to ensuring parliamentary scrutiny as we tread our way through these most extraordinary times.

This particular report of the COVID-19 Response Committee is the most extensive since the early days of the pandemic. The third interim report is one that the committee members decided warranted renewed interest and rigour, and certainly a renewed set of advertising. With that, on 10 December this committee resolved to readvertise for further written submissions, and they were due by 28 January this year.

The committee met on six occasions and we heard from 27 witnesses. The committee also received 15 additional written submissions, and a list of the witnesses shows that there was much interest in this particular committee. I will start by also thanking the members of the committee: the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Emily Bourke, the Hon. Dennis Hood, the Hon. Ian Hunter and the Hon. Terry Stephens, as well as previous members of the committee, and our secretariat Anthony Beasley and Leslie Guy. We were aided very ably in this particular tranche of the committee's reporting by our acting executive research officer, Mrs Lisa Baxter, and I thank her wholeheartedly for her fine work and thorough and diligent report writing.

The status from 23 November last year when, as the State Coordinator stated a few days earlier, we let COVID into our state has been well covered by this particular committee. This committee actually allowed for voices that were not being heard in the debates, and in the daily press conferences, but I will start with some of the statistics.

Indeed, confirmed COVID-19 cases as of 9 November 2021 were calculated, but by way of update this committee notes the following statistics as of 1 February 2022. Australia has 2,213,084 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with 3,835 people dying from the virus; these are sobering statistics. South Australia has had 106,862 confirmed cases and currently has 18,928 active cases, as of the report being finalised. There have been 120 deaths as of that date. There are 93.4 per cent of Australians aged 16 years and over who are fully vaccinated and around 95 per cent of Australians aged 16 years and over have had at least one dose. Certainly, this is a very different statistic from those early days of the pandemic when there was no vaccine.

The committee noted the use of the COVID SAfe Check-Ins and the new technologies that allowed for that transition from being a state where we were seeking to eliminate COVID to one where we have sought to suppress it. Since last year, when the state government announced its COVID-Ready Plan on 26 October, the key events have included removing state border restrictions to those people fully vaccinated from 23 November last year. The COVID-Ready Plan also reduced quarantine requirements for people entering the state from overseas, from 14 days to seven days. It increased the number of people allowed at home gatherings from 20 to 30.

Some witnesses, such as the AMA, stated to our committee that they were expecting the state to open its borders closer to mid-December, and they had based that on the population being vaccinated at a level of 80 per cent plus two weeks. They described the 23 November 2021 opening date as 'earlier than we expected'.

On 24 November 2021, the first case of the Omicron COVID-19 variant was reported in South Africa. The first confirmed cases of the new variant in Australia occurred in New South Wales on 28 November 2021. South Australia had our first confirmed Omicron COVID-19 case on 10 December last year. First reports indicated the new strain of the virus as being more transmissible than the Delta strain, but less likely to cause serious disease.

We heard evidence from Dr Chris Moy, Vice President of the Australian Medical Association, who explained to the committee that the previous regime of vaccination was less effective against the new Omicron strain of the virus. I note he was quoted in our report as saying:

It appears that having two shots—against Omicron, your protection against severe disease drops from around 93 per cent down to about 70 per cent, even though Omicron is less likely to cause serious disease. However, if you have a booster, it raises up to close to 90 per cent again, so those households get protected again and people don't end up in hospital again. Every day we buy to get more booster shots is a double effect.

As I have already noted, the AMA did say that they felt that the opening date was just a little too early and that they had expected it to be mid-December when that 80 per cent mark had been reached, and there would also be two weeks of further comfort. Certainly, in hindsight, it may have given us an awareness exactly of what to expect with the Omicron variant and perhaps may have changed those decisions.

The directions of 27 December last year, as many members know, were not anticipated when we first opened the borders on 23 November that were sought to slow down the spread. Those level 1 directions were outlined as:

three-quarter densities for seated activities;

no communal consumption facilities;

one in two density for non-seated activities;

one in four density for indoor hospitality activities;

one in two for outdoor hospitality activities;

one in seven for indoor fitness;

seated food and beverage consumption only for indoor and outdoor-defined public activities;

a shisha ban that has continued for almost the entirety of the pandemic;

a gathering at home cap of 10 (gatherings at residential premises, including residents of residential premises being covered by that);

masks for high-risk settings.

We see here just in this chamber today how masks have become a feature of this new phase of the pandemic, where we are now in the position of living with COVID. Other directions include:

masks for personal care services (except for the person receiving the service, if necessary for the provision of that personal care service);

masks for healthcare services;

masks for passenger transport services;

masks for indoor fitness facilities (except while exercising);

masks for shared indoor public places (except bridal parties during ceremonies); and

restrictions on dancing and singing.

These were restrictions that were more akin to the early days of the pandemic and largely due to the Omicron variant and the abundance of caution shown.

What was concerning is that we did hear evidence from various witnesses that not only did the Chief Public Health Officer have some concerns and recommend closing the borders again in the early days post this period, but workforce plans and negotiations with stakeholders did not seem to have been done before we opened up those borders.

I will leave members to have their own analysis of the evidence presented but, certainly, we heard quite concerning stories of meatworks on the Limestone Coast, where exemptions were given that basically told people to go to work sick and not to work the full shift if they were too sick to work when they had COVID. While denied in terms of the extent of the exemptions given, there was no clarity on just how many people were given those exemptions by SA Health.

Time and time again, there is a lack of paper trail in the pandemic management. The Transition Committee, which has long been the subject of this particular select committee's focus, had been, by changes made to the act, prior to 23 November forced to publish their minutes. They made a decision that they would wind up when we reached a 90 per cent vaccination rate, a decision that did not seem to be broadcast publicly or widely before it was uncovered in particular by this committee. Those minutes certainly do not reflect those particular debates. Indeed, minutes attached to the report of this committee from December were only put on the website possibly last Friday, but certainly well beyond the legislative requirement for the publication of those minutes.

The secrecy of the Transition Committee has now been replaced by the surreal COVID-Ready Committee. We were informed by various witnesses—and I will note that the Budget and Finance Committee has now possibly almost already tabled—that it does not keep agendas. It does not take minutes. It certainly lacks transparency. It certainly raises more questions than it answers. In this new phase of the pandemic, I would have thought transparency would be more important than ever, but it seems a more secretive approach has now been taken.

Ten days before the issue of the writs for the next state election, I would hope going forward that the lessons we have learned currently, as we live with COVID now, are that transparency is going to be the way forward and that perhaps—and I say this as the Chair, not as the opinion of all members of this committee—going forward it would probably be beneficial to have a standalone piece of legislation, as Victoria has undertaken.

In that legislation there, they require, for example, public health advice to be published so that all can see it and it cannot be used or misquoted or partially quoted. Full, transparent disclosure of information is indeed in keeping with best practice across the world as we continue to work our way through this pandemic. With COVID-19, it has been essential for a good public health response.

It was most concerning to have the Chief Executive of SA Health tell our committee that if we wanted the full modelling of the Omicron variant that has been most recently done, and as was released in the early days of the pandemic when the first tranches of modelling were done, he informed the Hon. Ian Hunter that he could FOI it.

This is a most substandard and inappropriate response for the Chief Executive of SA Health to make to the parliamentary committee charged with the oversight of our COVID-19 response. Where we do not have standalone legislation, we now do not have a Transition Committee publishing minutes and we have various cogs in the SA Health wheel providing information and exemptions and running processes where there is no clear lineage of accountability, this is simply not good enough.

The committee also heard from those in the education sector, from the teachers' union, from the department and from others about the confusion over whether or not the Doherty Institute's advice actually was the advice that South Australia has followed. Again, the lack of making themselves accountable and the advice given being published raises more concerns and questions than it gave us answers.

Early this year, we had a government that was making rapid antigen tests illegal continue to make them illegal. The committee's evidence noted the questions of the Hon. Frank Pangallo to the health minister last year. Anyone who was looking around the world could see that rapid antigen tests are part of the living with COVID phase and that they should have been more accessible. Even if it was not the intention of SA Health for them to be provided more broadly, they certainly should not have continued to make them illegal.

When you had interstate travellers coming in with their RAT tests, able to use them but then also required somehow to have a test and get into the long lines that we saw in those first days post 23 November, it did beggar belief that those sorts of measures had not been put in place. Indeed, it continued to stand in the directions that they were expressly illegal unless administered by SA Health. They were tools that had been well and truly tested across the world.

The teachers, to their credit, pushed back and fought for their workplace safety. The school return plan that was first mooted is a very different return plan that we will see finalised on Monday coming, when the last cohort of students actually return to our schools. There was certainly a great deal of confusion and a great deal of suspicion and animosity between stakeholders and groups, particularly unions, in this period.

I note that the Treasurer's approach to what he calls union bosses has not been helpful. It is, perhaps, something that, under this pandemic, should have been put aside. Those old attitudes should have been put aside, as they were in the first days of the pandemic, where at a federal level the unions worked with the employer groups and with the governments. That should have been done again as we opened our borders.

The various documents that are in the public domain are often changed day to day. There is a lack of clarity on when to expect a press conference or a press release. It certainly has been somewhat concerning as well that we did open the borders without children being vaccinated. The modelling that is now available on the SA Health website does flag their assumptions that vaccination rates will remain steady, as they were prior to the borders opening, but we do know that they are now dropping and that for the third booster dose they are not as strong as they previously were, and that does call into question the modelling that already says that come April we will see a further wave.

I know there has been a lot of talk about there not being another second wave, that we are at the peak and that we are now going down, but unless you have public confidence, the public health measures will not be accepted. In South Australia we have seen all sides of politics and many in SA Health and the other associated bodies be very proud that we have what is called a compliant society. You only get compliance, though, when you have transparency and when you have truthfulness. I fear that without respect for the parliament and respect for the processes and standalone legislation, in the future our pandemic story may not be as rosy as it currently is.

With that, I recommend that all members of this place read this evidence. There are a significant number of groups and individuals who still wish to present to this committee. But I am a realist and, with 10 days before we move into caretaker government, I do not expect that the committee is going to be hearing from them before the state election.

After the state election, I feel that this work has to continue in some shape or form. I would hope it will continue to be somewhat collegial. Certainly, even among committee members, at times we did have our moments, but largely this was done with a spirit of ensuring good outcomes and all voices being heard, but without seeking to make cheap political points from it.

The evidence to come and some of the submissions made since 23 November have called for that standalone legislation. As we move into this period, we really need to rebalance again our civil liberties and public health restrictions and forge a new way forward after the election. With that, I commend the report to the council.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:23): I want to start by acknowledging the excellent work of the people involved in this committee, obviously my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks and the other members, because I think this committee has provided some really important oversight of this public health disaster and the government response, so it is really critical and important work.

I have not really spoken about COVID in general terms during my time here, so I want to use this opportunity to talk a little bit about some of the concerns I have around the state government's response and the federal government's response. Some of those are informed by my own experience with COVID over the Christmas break. Members will be aware that I picked up the virus at an event I went to on 27 December and tested positive on New Year's Day. It was not quite the positive note I was hoping for as I started 2022.

What was really interesting for me, though, was that it did provide an insight into the support that is provided to people living with the virus. I received daily text messages from SA Health asking about my wellbeing. As part of that regime, a number was provided for people with COVID to call if they would like assistance. One particular day my symptoms started off being very mild, but as I moved through the virus they became a little bit more serious and I was feeling quite unwell—certainly not unwell enough to call 000, but unwell enough to feel like I might want to get some advice from a health professional.

I contacted the number that was provided. I was required to go through a series of prompts over the phone and eventually told that I was around No. 60 in the queue. There was no estimated wait time and there was no option to leave a number for you to get a call back, so I simply hung up. In my case, I am in a fortunate position as a member of this parliament to be able to afford to organise a GP consult, do a telehealth session and to get advice at my own expense, but not everybody in the South Australian community is able to do that.

I am particularly concerned about elderly people, those who are living alone, those who may not be proficient with technology, for whom a text message is perhaps an inadequate form of communication. What support is provided to them as they try to negotiate this pandemic? What advice are they given? We keep being told—indeed, it is the mantra of the Liberal Party at both the state and federal level—that the Omicron variant is mild, but in clinical terms what that means is not hospitalisation. Mild means different things to different people.

All members of the South Australian community should have access to health advice. I am very concerned that simply receiving a text message, with no follow-up call, is an inadequate way to treat vulnerable people who are experiencing a virus that many of us have never encountered before. Certainly from my own experience, talking with different people in my friendship group and others I know who have had COVID-19, the virus impacts everybody differently and there is a need to receive follow-up calls and support, and that simply has not been provided by the government.

What they do provide is a highly complex and poorly designed website with a series of rules and directions that change almost on a daily basis, making it very difficult for people to comply with the health directives and to understand what is required of them when they are dealing with the virus. They provide no advice on what is considered normal in terms of recovery or what one might expect. I think the Prime Minister's advice has been to contact your GP, but of course we know that is not always possible. It can be very difficult for people to find an appointment with a GP.

That brings me to one of the key points I want to make here around the incompetence of the Morrison government in Canberra. It is an incompetence that has started in Canberra and I fear has moved all the way down here to North Terrace. It started with the Liberal Party's appalling handling of hotel quarantine, the botched rollout of the vaccine, where people under 40 were required to wait months and months and months before they had access to the COVID-19 vaccine and were provided with contradictory and unhelpful public health advice, with no clear directive from the government before they were able to access the vaccine.

I think it is appalling that a country with our resources did not make that the number one priority for the year 2021, yet sadly many Australians, including people in our own state, were waiting for months and months before they were able to get access to a first and second dose of the vaccine. We now know, of course, that as a result there will be delays in people getting access to their booster—simply not good enough for a country with our resources not to be able to meet the needs of its residents in that way. I must say that the leadership of our Prime Minister has been severely lacking. It is hard to think of a more incompetent Prime Minister in the modern age. He has certainly failed to manage this public health emergency.

I also want to focus on the state government's response in South Australia and the decision to open the borders late last year. No-one, I am sure, would argue that we were going to keep borders closed indefinitely here in our state—I think people recognised that borders had to be opened at some point—but there was an expectation and a hope that the planning would be done, that the government had planned for this contingency, that the appropriate resources were going to be made available when we saw a spike in COVID infections, that businesses would get the support that they needed and that public health would get the resources required.

We know, of course, that did not happen. Chaos ensued for our city businesses. Walking through the CBD (I live in town), I have seen the devastation that has been wrought on our business community. Many I have spoken to have told me that they have had their worst Christmas season in decades and decades. Again, there has not been adequate support provided by the Liberal government in South Australia or, indeed, in Canberra—once again, a huge disappointment and a missed opportunity.

My colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks talked about the lack of access to rapid antigen tests—another bizarre failure of leadership from the state government. It is difficult to fathom why rapid antigen tests were not made available for sale in South Australia prior to the Christmas period. Indeed, it is easier to get COVID in South Australia than it is to get a rapid antigen test. That is disgraceful.

It is appalling that South Australians required to meet testing requirements were expected to sit and queue for hours and hours and hours in the lead-up to the Christmas period. It is a disgrace that some of those South Australians were waiting for 11 hours or more in their cars on hot days while feeling unwell in order to access a test. Surely we can do better than that. It is appalling that there is only one facility provided for people who do not have a car.

During the Christmas break, when I needed to access a testing facility, I went to the RAH. I got there at 5.30 in the morning, it opened at 6.30, and at that time there was already an enormous queue. By 7.30am, people waiting were told that the testing facility was not going to be taking any more walk-ins that morning because it was closing at 10.30am—again, poor planning, poor resourcing, simply not good enough.

I think South Australians have a right to be angry about what has unfolded in our state and our nation over the last 12 months—the failure to plan appropriately, the failure to appropriately invest resources and the failure to support vulnerable people during this time of crisis. When I asked questions of the Minister for Health yesterday about the information provided to people with COVID, he directed me to a general information line. That was telling because I do not think the minister is aware of the poor level of support provided to people with COVID-19 in our community. That needs to improve.

If we are seriously going to live with this virus, expecting people to queue for hours and hours and hours in testing stations and expecting people to wait for hours and hours and hours on the phone just to speak to a health professional has to change. That is not living with the virus: that is creating chaos and confusion and putting people at risk of serious ill health. If we want people to test, then they should be able to access rapid tests, they should be able to access a PCR test, and those things need to be resourced appropriately by government.

We also have seen no plan from the Liberals in terms of the implications of long COVID and what that means. We know that COVID-19 is a viral infection that can produce lasting consequences. I am yet to see the Liberals at a state or federal level talk about their plan to deal with that. Once again, we see a lot of bloviating from the Prime Minister over in Canberra, talking up the mildness of the COVID-19 pandemic. We do not see a lot of talk about what his plan is to actually try to get on top of this pandemic. It is not good enough. South Australians deserve so much better.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.