HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-05-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing for Diseases) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 March 2015.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:26): This bill was introduced on 18 March this year and it covers the bill that had previously been in the parliament back in July 2014. With the proroguing of parliament that lapsed and the bill has been reintroduced this year by the Attorney. It does have a significant difference from last year's bill in that it makes provision for employees who are in emergency departments and the like to also have protection in addition to the police in the terms as set out in this bill.

Essentially, the bill amends the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act 2007 to require an offender who bites or spits at a police officer, or now an emergency worker, to undertake a blood test for an infectious disease. The threshold essentially requires a reasonable suspicion that the victim, in this case, has been assaulted or that the offender has committed other specific offences of violence. Again, this is something that we traversed last year, but the government introduced the bill originally consistent with a 2014 election commitment.

There was a general concern that police officers exposed to an offender's bodily fluids might be at risk of being exposed to or contracting a communicable disease. To date, there is no obligation on the part of the offender to be tested. Essentially, what would occur is that police officers would have a blood test, I think at the government's expense, but they would have to wait, usually for some time, before the results were confirmed.

This is a risk, as some 700 police officers each year are assaulted in the course of their work, and it was estimated that 250 to 350 of those were either spat at or bitten. The risk was not insignificant, and that the police officers had to wait to have their own tests done was unacceptable. Essentially, the identification of whether there was some contamination was delayed because of the time that the communicable disease contaminant needed to develop in the system for the purposes of testing, whereas if the offender already had that condition that would be evident from a simple blood test, and the outline could be obtained in a timely manner.

The government, it appears, has since acknowledged that persons who are working in emergency circumstances should also have the same protection. Clearly, they are also at risk of contracting an infectious disease, owing to violence inflicted on them in the course of their occupations. It is a little disappointing, but pretty predictable, that the government would make the addition in its bill that was tabled this year and introduced to the parliament with no recognition whatsoever of those of us who have presented and put forward this proposal, no acknowledgement of the opposition. It is discourteous at best and a bit churlish; nevertheless, we are used to that. We are pleased that the government has at least accommodated the amendment and appreciates what we were arguing for last year.

I put on the record for the Attorney that quite often members in this house bring forward private members' bills or the opposition presents bills for the consideration of the parliament and they are rejected on the basis that they are not comprehensive enough, that they need some other work, some massaging or an amendment. The government has the resources to do that; they sometimes do it and then reintroduce the bill and frequently acknowledge the private member, especially if they are an Independent, for the work they have done previously.

I make that point because it is a little disappointing that, whilst we have a role in this parliament as an opposition, the Attorney, or those who prepared his speech, has not seen fit to acknowledge that that idea has come from the opposition. Nevertheless, the bill is better for that inclusion, and I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we will support its passage through this house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:34): I rise to speak to the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing for Diseases) Amendment Bill. I note the comments from our deputy leader, the member for Bragg, that the government has not acknowledged the work of the opposition, and I note the good work that has been done on this side.

When this bill was reintroduced this year, there was a vast improvement in who will have the ability to get an offender's blood tested in certain situations in regard to emergency work across the field. The specified offences detailed within this bill include assault, causing harm, causing serious harm, acts endangering life or creating risk of serious harm, riot, affray, assaulting and hindering police, violent disorder and any other serious offence of violence prescribed by regulation.

It is correct to say that the bill tabled last year related only to police officers, which we were seeking to amend. It obviously fell off the table with the proroguing of parliament, but it is a welcome move to include other emergency workers and other people in the field who may come in contact with someone who has the potential to have a communicable disease and who may be spitting on them.

The bill talks about where an offence like this could happen—it could be in the accident or emergency department of a hospital—and the definition in the bill states:

…the part of a hospital dedicated to the hospital's major accident and emergency functions, including those areas of the department used for administrative, waiting, reception, storage, diagnostic, treatment, consultation, triage and resuscitation functions and the access bays for ambulance and police.

Any biological material of a person:

…means the person's blood or bodily fluids or any other biological material of the person that is capable of communicating or transmitting a disease;

The greater spread of people who will be incorporated under this bill appears under the listing of the emergency services providers. It is good to see that the first one listed is the South Australian Country Fire Service, of which I am a member, as is the member for Morphett and many members on this side. Also listed are the South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service, the South Australian State Emergency Service, the South Australian Ambulance Service, St John Ambulance Australia South Australia Incorporated, Surf Life Saving South Australia Incorporated, a volunteer marine rescue association accredited by the State Marine Rescue Committee to perform search and rescue functions, and the accident or emergency department of a hospital. It certainly is pleasing that the government has seen fit to spread the bill over all these emergency services because it is absolutely vital that people believe they are getting protection in the field.

There has been a bit of concern expressed by some people consulted along the way about guidance around the testing, and it has been indicated that senior police officers will have regard to expert guidance of the risks of the transmission of infectious diseases in deciding if testing is appropriate under the bill. A protocol will have to be developed between SA Health and SAPOL, in close consultation with the Chief Public Health Officer, to ensure that senior police officers are properly informed and that testing under the bill is performed appropriately.

From the speeches I have read when this bill was introduced, and from the briefings we have had on this side of the house, the beauty of this bill is that it spreads to other emergency workers who, as we are well aware, can be assaulted in the course of their occupation. Certainly, in light of what occurs in emergency wards, medical and nursing staff and paramedics are right at the cutting edge of situations out there in the street or in the community. In light of that, I commend the bill and I believe it should have a speedy passage through this place and the other place.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (17:40): About 12 months ago, I left home, travelling towards Kangarilla, came around the corner and there was a head-on smash. Being an active member of the CFS, plus wanting to see what I could do anyway, I stopped to assist. The driver of one particular car, although very badly injured, was, shall we say, less than cooperative. It took quite a number of members of the CFS and ambulance service to ensure that this chap's welfare was being protected, despite his own actions.

There was blood everywhere, there was quite a lot of saliva and he was obviously in extreme pain from the severe injuries he had suffered. There was some danger to members of the CFS and the ambulance service working inside the confined space in the car with a guy who, it turned out, was not only drunk but on ice. He was incredibly strong. I can remember that—incredibly strong. So, to protect emergency services workers, police and others going about their job is something that we need to do. We really do need to do this.

I remember back in 2011, when we debated the South Australian Public Health Act, we talked about compelling people to undergo an examination or a test, and that was division 2—Controls, section 73—Power to require a person to undergo an examination or test, which provided that, 'The Chief Public Health Officer may impose a requirement under this section if,' and there are a number of things that apply.

This piece of legislation is going to provide similar recourse to force people to undergo forensic testing for communicable diseases if there is any suspicion that they may have, during their interactions with emergency services workers (whether police, CFS, MFS or SES), transmitted any bodily fluids by spitting, biting or wiping onto that particular person. So, it is important that we provide not only the opportunity for our emergency services workers to know what they have faced and then give them the support they need, but also to make sure that people realise that if you are acting up and you get involved in this you are going to be tested and you are not going to have any say in it; this legislation is there to do that.

There is still an outstanding issue, as I understand it, about crown law advice to the government on what doctors and nurses in hospitals can do to restrain patients, whether they can be charged in some way. I understand there is some confusion, so it will be interesting to see what the Attorney has to say on that, on protecting our doctors and nurses in hospitals. As we know, there are code blacks all the time and they are under threat from drunks and drugged out patients.

It is sad that we need this piece of legislation. It is necessary, just as we had to put section 73 in the South Australian Public Health Act. This piece of legislation is something that, I hope, goes through both places very quickly so that we can make sure we give our emergency services workers, medical practitioners and nurses, the whole spectrum of people who are trying to help individuals in distress, or otherwise, the best protection we can.

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (17:44): It will be a very quick contribution from me, Deputy Speaker, on the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing for Diseases) Amendment Bill. I rise to indicate my support and to show, I guess, gratitude for the government's decision to broaden the definitions and scope of this particular amendment bill. I think it is incredibly important to recognise those working at the coalface of our public services. I spoke at reasonable length on the motion put forward by the member for Elder on International Nurses Day, of the difficulties often faced by nurses and other people who work at the coalface of public service, and the real need to do whatever we can, not only to protect them but to support them and ensure that we are giving them the same protections as other emergency services.

For me in particular, nursing is something of a personal interest, because as I have shared here before, that is a profession that my wife works in. Also, as an active surf lifesaver, I was very pleased to see, under the definition of 'emergency services provider', we have been able to include Surf Life Saving South Australia Incorporated. Along with the member for Kaurna (the co-convenor of the Parliamentary Friends of Surf Life Saving) I just want to again put on record my appreciation that the government has come to the table, broadening the definitions, and making this bill more inclusive.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (17:46): It would be totally remiss of me not to rise today to speak in support of this bill on 12 May, which is officially International Nurses Day. As a health worker for 28 years, I have experienced blood and bodily fluid contamination, and I have also supported dozens of healthcare workers through that very gruelling process of waiting and not knowing whether or not they have suffered some kind of infection from a contamination event.

It is one of the most gruelling and terrifying situations that a healthcare worker can experience. In respect of this bill, I would hope that it is supported very quickly through both houses. That is all I have to say on this, in support of International Nurses Day.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (17:47): I also rise to support the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing for Diseases) Amendment Bill. It is fantastic that the government has come to the table on this and broadened their definition of emergency service workers, and it now encompasses many more in the community. I commend the member for Bragg, who has tirelessly advocated on behalf of these emergency workers. Why should we discriminate, like the government wanted to do in its original bill? Absolutely shameful.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: It has reduced the tone; it was going so well.

Mr TARZIA: It was, but it needs to be said. There needs to be more of this sort of thing. When there is a good idea—and it is a good idea—the government owe it to the people of South Australia that, if that idea does come from opposition and benefits the people of South Australia, they should adopt it. I commend the Attorney for taking on the views of the shadow attorney, and I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (17:48): Particularly for those members who have not been here for as long as some others have been, this is one of those moments I hope you will treasure for the rest of your parliamentary career. This is one of those ecumenical moments, where, in spite of the member for Hartley lowering the tone a bit by a couple of cheap shots, we are all basically joining hands and singing Kumbaya. It does not happen very often. Madam Deputy Speaker, you have been here longer than I; how often do you see this sort of ecumenical joining of hands?

Just for those people who have not been here as long, can I say: savour this moment. At some point later in your career, when you are trying desperately to find that happy psychological thing that you can put in your head to move you to the other higher place, try this one, because it is going to be good: there will not be many of them, at least during the tenure of the current member for Bragg.

Mr Pederick: Talk about cheap shots!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I don't mean that. I only said that as sort of a sparring thing.

Ms Chapman: How many of these did you do to the Hon. Stephen Wade?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: He's in a different category altogether, and can I say, when we are on the topic of him, there is nothing I can tell members opposite that they do not already know, but let me leave it at that. Let's get on with it, then.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure there is a standing order against mirth. There is a mirth standing order and I am invoking it.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (17:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Just to say to the member for Bragg, it is not often that I have really warm things to say about her, at least in here, but she has added value. In this spirit, I hope that we both see a lot more value in the next weeks and months that lie ahead.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT