HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-05-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Screening) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 17.

Ms COOK: In regard to progress through these clauses, could the Deputy Premier give any advice about what advice was sought, and from whom, regarding the email from minister Lensink to members of the house outlining a determination to finalise debate by 5.30pm today?

The CHAIR: Could you repeat the question, please.

Ms COOK: During the week, members were sent an email from the minister in the other place—

The CHAIR: As in members of this house?

Ms COOK: —yes—outlining that there had been a determination and advice that we need to finalise debate on this bill by 5.30pm today. I can table a copy of the email, if you wish.

The CHAIR: I am not aware of that email.

Ms COOK: I was just asking about that judgement.

The CHAIR: I rule that out of order, member for Hurtle Vale. I have had no suggestion to me as committee Chair that that is the case, so I am going to suggest that we move on to the next question.

Ms COOK: Given that then, could the Deputy Premier explain the rationale of changes to the clause 17 countenances?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The deletion of subsection (1) of section 43. I am advised that the transitional arrangements, which are what we are dealing with, require the new amendment to remove two amendments to be made to the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016, which made bestiality a prescribed offence.

Australian jurisdictions initially agreed to the national standards for working with children checks that bestiality should be considered a disqualifying offence known as a category 1 offence with no right of appeal. Jurisdictions also took the same approach in the NDIS Workers Screening IGA (that is, the intergovernmental agreement).

However, since these standards and IGA were agreed, jurisdictions have been working through specific and detailed offence mapping for each offence category for the purpose of the NDIS worker screening. As a result of this work, jurisdictions have identified specific instances of offending that may be captured by the offence of bestiality that should not result in the person being prohibited indefinitely.

For example, jurisdictions have encountered instances where a young adult offender may have been found guilty of a bestiality offence; however, the young offender may have engaged in that behaviour while drunk or through a dare, not amounting to sexual intercourse, and since that time has not engaged in the same type of offending.

Jurisdictions are mindful that these offenders would be excluded from ever being permitted to undertake child-related work because of an offence committed as a young adult when the individual has not engaged in any other offending over subsequent years and no longer poses a risk to children. As a result, an amendment is required to ensure that bestiality is not considered a prescribed offence to allow for these circumstances, which is a bit more expanded than I advised earlier in the committee. I hope that covers it.

Clause passed.

Clause 18.

Ms COOK: Again, I ask about the rationale for the changes at clause 18.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This clause makes a consequential amendment to the long title of the Disability Inclusion Act 2018 to enable the act to provide for the NDIS Worker Check Scheme.

The CHAIR: A comprehensive answer. Any further questions?

Clause passed.

Clause 19 passed.

Clause 20.

Ms COOK: In the other place the minister said:

The advice I have received is that in terms of the logistics, explaining to people who contact the screening unit, it is relatively easy to explain to people about seven days; if you try to explain to them about the 150 hours, that is going to be quite an extensive operation to even get people to understand that.

My question is directly related to what the reason is that we cannot have a period of hours of work provided so that it is very clear for people within the act as opposed to what is loose and days where hours are not prescribed within those days.

We have not been able to get an answer at this point regarding any definitive number of hours to be worked by somebody, and it puts people at risk of breaching the act, whereas if there are a prescribed number of hours to be worked it would be very simple for them and leave nothing to chance. Why is it so difficult for the unit to do an hour count versus a day count? Why can people not understand it, according to the minister?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think all the reasons that were traversed in the other place when an alternative proposal was put by the Labor Party representatives to consider having the 150-hour option make it very clear that the capacity for ease of understanding is to be able to be employed on the seven-day rule. Why? As I say, apart from all the reasons that are put there, the seven-day period is not an uncommon feature in relation to other legislation and has an ordinary meaning for the purposes of its employment.

Certainly, there has been exposure in the debates as to whether a day is a full day or just an hour on a day, and all that debate has taken place. From the government's point of view, we are satisfied that, for the purposes of making it as easy as possible, it is fair to apply the seven-day arrangement rather than the 150 hours. We are persuaded by the arguments that have been put on keeping some kind of log of the number of hours over a period of time. That is why we are maintaining that position, and clearly most of the Legislative Council thought the same.

Ms COOK: It is all well and good for the Legislative Council to think the same, but people are still making presentations, to me at least, regarding the worry about getting caught inadvertently and unwillingly in a trap of suddenly being in breach of an act where there is quite a hefty penalty. I believe it is right for us to challenge this to the extreme so that we look after the best interests of people. That is why we are doing it.

Also, the case presented to us in regard to this clause was that there are people who will transition from being volunteer contributors in the community to suddenly working within a non-government organisation, for example, and getting paid. The case was put to us that the reason that this needed to happen, that they then paid for a screening, was that people would take advantage of the circumstances, apply for a volunteer screening and then just wait—get their volunteer screening, go for a job and not have to then pay for this said screening. An individual would do that and would plan to do that. Is it still the case that the government thinks that is why we have to charge all people, because they cannot be trusted to go from volunteering to paid work legitimately?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will try to be as brief as I can on this. Prior to this proposed legislation, as is operational today—except for a policy initiative of the new government from November last year giving relief to volunteers—everyone had to pay, volunteer or working. We have accepted an idea formulated into policy that volunteers ought to be able to have those checks for free. What the government have been alerted to is that it could be exploited by those who might want to avoid the payment by registering as a volunteer and then going on to paid employment just to avoid the fee.

I would hope—and I think it is the view of the government—if this occurs, it would be at a minimal level, but it may not be. We have to be alert to the fact that, good idea as it may be, we have to protect the taxpayer against any inappropriate use and exploitation of the offer that we have made. That is why it is there.

We have tried working a model of how that might apply and most easily be managed, particularly by the volunteer who might transfer to work on a day's basis. Obviously, the opposition has a different view as to how that should be applied. It has been debated, the merits have been considered and the government maintains its position that we are committed to giving volunteers a free check, but we also maintain a position that you pay for the check if it is for employment. If there is a circumstance where someone might abuse that, they will be caught. We consider that to be a responsible approach without there being any unfair impediment on volunteers or any unrealistic evasion of that by someone who is actually working.

Ms COOK: Just to clarify, if somebody gets a clearance to volunteer with children and then in the crossover they go to work, perhaps for a disability support organisation, which is where our concern lies—there are those very short shifts of one hour when they just pop in and out of a house to provide some minor assistance—does that qualify them as a worker within the context of the same screening? Do they need to reapply? What do they need to do? What are the instructions for those people?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, you do not have to apply for your working with children check in those circumstances.

Ms COOK: For working with a disability—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

Ms COOK: So it just transfers across and you have to pay.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They are separate checks; is that understood? As I say, we are now on the disability workers' side of things and they have a different origin. Their law is set out in the Disability Inclusion Act 2018 and has an entirely different origin. That is why there are some complications with having two separate checks, but we are updating both of them.

Ms COOK: To be able to share information with people in the public, there is no separate different application process with a waiting period that would need to happen? They would just alert the department to the fact that they are working once they get that trigger point, and it then converts; is that what would happen?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: An NDIS volunteer commences working, gives notice, pays the fee and is able to continue working, but they have simply paid the fee at that point. Ultimately, they get their notice of that being approved.

Ms COOK: As we said before, there will be an education process we will go through and an instruction process for organisations. This week, I have had four emails from organisations that I have referred on to the department. One of them was from a large organisation, Lions, who are quite confused about the new process, and I have explained to them that it is not actually in place at this stage.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I look forward then to the progressing of this bill so we can start the advertising campaign.

Clause passed.

Clause 21.

Ms COOK: In regard to clause 21, how will the government internally ensure that the unique identifier numbers are not able to be used or accessed by staff to identify a person involved in a screening application unless it specifically relates to the provision of a screening? How will that be protected?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It seems to me that there is a concern that the unique identifier in some way is a number that might carry information that, in the wrong hands, could be made available to someone else. The unique identifier number, I am advised, is a bit like a driver's licence number: it does not actually carry any data about how hopeless or good a driver you are; it simply provides a number for identification purposes. It is a number that is utilised for the purposes of the recipient being able to access information themselves and to provide to their employer for the purposes of their doing the check that the proper screening has occurred. That is the idea of it. It does not carry on its code any relevant data in relation to that person.

The information about a person in the unit is, as I explained earlier in the committee, protected by all the obligations in relation to public sector confidentiality and privacy and their obligations to maintain that material on a confidential basis. Just as any other person in the public sector or health department is not allowed to go in and look at other people's notes and use them for purposes other than the provision of health services, this is exactly the same scenario. The identifier itself is really just an access code for that person to be identified and to access information for themselves.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Where will the information be stored?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It will be stored in the departmental secure systems, which includes the assessment unit, where it is stored now and has been for as long as I have been around.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Attorney informs the committee that it is not stored at a data centre anywhere external from government through contract. It is stored on site on your own servers and in your own databases. That is news to me. It is a fascinating revelation. The question then becomes: what capacity—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You are talking about a unique identifier. It could be—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Getting frustrated is not an excuse for poor manners. I know that the government regularly buys space to store its information at external data centres, but the Attorney has informed the house that all that data will be stored on site, so my second question is: what is the size of the data management capability of the department?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As the member would well know—I have referred to the data previously and I will confirm again—it is secured in the public sector server systems. A lot of this data is in the iCloud, as the member well knows, but that does not mean that, because it is in that format, it is in some way insecure.

The unique identifier is an entirely independent issue. It does not carry data in itself. It is simply a number that is given to the client for the purposes of them being able to access information themselves or to provide that information to their employer, which is part of the regime here to make sure that you have a check—you do not work with children unless you have one—and that your employer has obligations to make sure that you have that check before they employ you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I just asked for the size of the agency's capability to store this on site. The Attorney-General just said that they are not storing it on site: they are storing it at a data centre or in the cloud. That was my initial question, which the Attorney scoffed at, saying, 'No, we are storing that inside the department.' Now we realise that we are not. My third question from the uncomfortable laughter of the Attorney-General is: what security measures has the department put in place around this information on top of the ordinary measures in place for government data that is held?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is exactly the same security system that operated pre-March 2018.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What is that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have the details of that, but I am sure that—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Perhaps you can get a briefing back to the committee rather than laughing it off arrogantly.

The CHAIR: The Member for West Torrens is called to order. The Attorney has the call.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The information that is stored in this unit is potentially very sensitive. It is being accumulated and made available for assessment for very good reason, namely, the protection of children and the vulnerable. It is a position that the government maintains is imperative to that. There is nothing to my knowledge that suggests that this information—which has been collected not just since this bill or the legislation in 2016; it has been around for a very long time—has not been maintained securely. We have no reason to doubt that it will continue to be.

If the member has any information to suggest that there is some release of or access to this data that is unlawful, I urge him to report it to the relevant authorities. I am happy for him to forward correspondence to me if he is concerned about that or has any indication that is occurring. It would be a very serious breach, and it would be a matter that we as a government would take very seriously.

Ms COOK: With respect to the unique identifier, what modelling was undertaken, and from where, regarding the creation of this system that has been established?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have particulars of that. The unique identifier was established under the 2016 legislation, so there was a previous government at that time. I do not think that it is anything particularly different from the processes operating in other states, but it predated our time, so I cannot—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Such an idiot. I do not have that information for the member.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir: I ask the Attorney to withdraw and apologise for calling me an idiot.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will withdraw it.

The CHAIR: I did not hear what the Attorney said.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Apologise.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have withdrawn it.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, member for West Torrens and Minister for Education! I am asking the committee to come to order. Member for West Torrens, you have been called to order once. You have had three questions. I did not hear what the Attorney supposedly said. I will ask her to return to her answer to the question put by the member for Hurtle Vale.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have finished the answer.

The CHAIR: Any further questions on clause 21? The member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Who develops the unique identifier?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I was not in government at the time this was established. My adviser does not have particulars on specifically who does that, but I imagine it is similar to someone who is allocated a number on their driver's licence. I expect that it would be a random allocated number. Once it has been allocated to a person, it would be recorded as their identifier. It is a key for that person to access electronic information. Importantly, it is something that they are able to utilise, as I have explained earlier in the committee, for complying with any request from a prospective employer to check that they have had their screening check to avoid any consequences themselves.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: On the basis that this is an automatically generated number, similar to a driver's licence number, as the Deputy Premier advises us, it must be done by some information technology system, some computer-based system. My question is: who manages this computer system and who manages the cloud-based service in which this information is stored?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised the registrar of the unit.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Just to clarify, the government wholly administers and curates this database and the cloud data services to which the Deputy Premier has made reference.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

Clause passed.

Clause 22.

Ms COOK: In regard to the process to establish the process in this clause, was there any consultation with private companies—businesses, small businesses and the like?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that the provision here, which is to identify what steps employers have to take when they are employing a prescribed person, is exactly the same as already exists under the protection of children regimes. Really, all we are doing is adding it in under the NDIS structure. This is not new to employers; it is simply that we have created under the Disability Inclusion Act 2018 a new structure to deal with the vulnerability of those in that category, and that is then being transferred into the legislation.

Ms COOK: Are you able to expand and elaborate on what the prescribed positions are that we are referring to in the clause?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The prescribed position under section 19 of the Disability Inclusion Act is:

(a) a position in which a person works, or is likely to work, with people with disability; or

(b) any other position, or a position of a class, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition;

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is both (a) and (b), as I have just read out.

Ms COOK: Sorry, I did not hear because there was talking.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I did not talk about paragraph (a) because that is not regulation. It provides here:

prescribed position means—

(a) a position in which a person works, or is likely to work, with people with disability; or

(b) any other position, or a position of a class, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition;

So it is two categories: one is those who already work with people with a disability, and obviously that is all in the principal act, in section 19.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If you do not meet the criteria of the two subsections the Attorney introduced—that is, an employer who does not necessarily work with disabled people in terms of delivering a service but is contracted to deliver a service—are they then required before they contract with any potential provider to undertake a series of checks before they can deliver that service, or is that the responsibility of the person who is contracting the service?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I did not understand the question. If the question is about who has the obligation, this section clearly sets out 'the employer'. If the employer is going to employ somebody in a prescribed position, which is basically someone who has worked in disability, or regulations can enhance that, then they have to do all these things, and that is what we are adding into the act.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My question then is: do contractors who are brought in to do work for agencies, where their employees would come into contact with disabled persons or minors before contracting or tendering, have to undergo these checks and services before they are eligible to apply?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In this area, we are working with two checks: one is in relation to an NDIS check, where there is a provider through that system, and the other is generally in relation to disability. They are obliged to be provided if you are working with somebody with a disability, however you are paid.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand that the Attorney said earlier in her remarks that this was the case already and that this amendment seeks to strengthen current provisions. In the intervening time since March 2018 until now, has the minister undertaken any consultation with Business SA or any employer groups regarding this clause?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot be certain about this clause, but it is fair to say that there has been comprehensive and continuing negotiation to develop both this bill and the regulations that are proposed to go with it to enable its effective introduction come 1 July. At the moment, because this new level of standard of screening, both expanded and to apply at a higher level, is going to affect thousands of people, it is important that it is carefully developed in a manner that is achievable for the legislation to be completed this week, to enable that advertising campaign.

I think the member for Hurtle Vale is a prime example of a member who is receiving inquiries and would like to have some capacity to give answers to very frequently asked questions, which commonly comes with these things. That will need to happen over the next number of weeks. We effectively have six weeks until the end of the financial year and we need to get on with it if we are to achieve that deadline. I think the indications from all the contributors to this debate is that they agree that it is a matter that needs to be progressed. Its legislation starts back in 2016. We do need to get on with this; the public does expect us to actually progress this.

I hope, in answering that, that it is clear there are agencies, there are NGOs, there are people in the disability field, there are people who work in child protection, there are industry providers of a number of these services. We want to get it right to ensure that children, vulnerable and disabled people in our community are protected.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As a preamble to my question, I reflect briefly on the questions and answers we had on clause 21 regarding the unique identifier that is, again, mentioned in the current clause 22 we are discussing.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Is it?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, it is. In response to a number of questions, the Deputy Premier advised us that the unique identifier is one that is automatically generated, not dissimilar to other automatically generated identification numbers in other government databases and for other government purposes, that this was a cloud-based data management system.

You will recall, Chair, that I asked a question about whether this was a data management cloud-based service that was one of the government's or whether it was some other arrangement. The Deputy Premier replied that it was a government cloud-based system, and, in fact, advised that it was the registrar, I think, who was responsible for it. Reading a little further on this clause, we see the requirements of new section 22D, which require a records management system to be provided and administered by the registrar.

First, I just want to check that the previous discussion about the unique identifier and the answers given pertain to that records management system and not to some other cloud-based service. Is that correct?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is an existing system, which has been referred to by the member. The obligation here—bearing in mind that we are enhancing this service and it is going to an expanded group, etc.—is that the registrar must establish and maintain a records management system for this new regime. It will basically be using the same data system that operates in the department in respect of the information collated. This is just setting out an obligation that the registrar has to maintain that as a specific records management system.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: And that relates to the identifier as well?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The identifier is just the number that operates to get access to some of the information in it, yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I appreciate the Deputy Premier's explanation. My second question is in light of the provisions of 22E. Moving on from the requirement to provide a records management system and its superintendence by the registrar, new section 22E provides the capacity for a person to inspect the records management system. I gather that the rationale behind that, from the government's perspective, is that a person should have an ability to check what has been recorded about them to see whether what has been recorded about them aligns with their understanding of their personal information.

However, I would have thought that the information being stored in the records management system as it relates to screening checks, and indeed the unique identifiers, would be very sensitive information. Unfortunately, and I know this will provide fertile opportunity for the Deputy Premier to wax lyrical about Shannon McCoole and so on—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, in fact, not just once. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that, unfortunately, we might find a government employee who is motivated to become involved in horrendous and nefarious activities and seek to exploit children. In the provisions of this bill, it appears that we have a records management system, which is important and necessary, of course, but which can be freely inspected by a person. I have made the assumption that it is for the purpose of somebody being able to check their own personal information. I might be wrong, and I am happy to be corrected by the Deputy Premier.

My question is whether there are protocols for an individual to access this database and what restrictions there are on individuals who seek to access the database. Can the Deputy Premier outline some assurances that there are fairly tight restrictions on what people can access when individuals take advantage of the abilities conferred on them in this clause?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: For the benefit of the member, who obviously has not been listening attentively to all the contributions in this committee, I will repeat the following about access to information and who gets to see it and for what purpose. I would like to indicate to the committee that this whole records management system is identical to section 34 of the prohibited persons act, which is legislation passed under the member's former government which establishes the central assessment unit records management system for the purposes of the screening.

The purpose of having an identifier number allocated to the worker or volunteer, paid or otherwise, is that they can access material, maybe for the reasons that the member has highlighted as an example—that is, to check whether information is correct or updated—but also to provide to their prospective employer for them to check it. It is a means by which an access is obtained for the prospective employer to check that that person has actually done the screening test, remembering that the employer also faces very significant penalties—significantly increased in 2016, post the Nyland inquiry—if they employ anybody without having that check if they propose to be in a circumstance of working with children.

So it is twofold: it is a replica of what has already been there for the purposes of the aspect that we are adding to, which relates to people with a disability and it works on the basis that the employee or volunteer gets the number and that that is an access point and they can provide it. Therefore, proposed section 22E sets out the inspection arrangements for that purpose.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: To be clear, it is the bill which requires a records management system to be established and maintained. Yes, there is a provision in the bill, under 22D(7), that the records management system required in this bill may be combined with the prohibited persons act.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: No, it is the same as.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Is it 'the same as' or is it the same?

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: It is the same. It is the exact replica.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Is it a replica or is it the same database?

The CHAIR: Is that your question, member for Lee?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, I was responding to an interjection.

The CHAIR: Do not be tempted to do that, member for Lee. There is a discussion going on here, but you should continue with your contribution and questions.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: While the Deputy Premier works out whether it is the same database or a replica of the database—and I look forward to her advice there—in any event we have an established database, which either is being used or is the model for the operation of the database required under this act. Given that we have a database in operation, the protocols that currently exist for access to this database should be clear to the Deputy Premier, or indeed her adviser, and so I ask the Deputy Premier to provide the committee some advice about the protocols for access to the database, and in particular what the restrictions are in terms of accessing information within that database.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This records management system that is proposed in this clause is identical to section 34 of the prohibited persons act and establishes the central assessment unit's records management system for the purposes of the part 6 screening, which can be combined with the same records management system established under the prohibited persons act. So the law is identical. That is what is proposed, so there are exactly the same access obligations, recording and provision of the unique identifier, etc.

The database, I am told, electronically is one system that operates within the unit. I think it is clear that the identical replication is of the law, and that is designed to ensure that this central assessment unit, which has the job, as you say, of having the practical application of this and having protocols to do it, is set out in these divisions.

That is why we have specific provision for what the employers have to do, the advice they have to give and, in addition to that, who can inspect the records and in what circumstances. That is what they are there for. If it helps the member, the records management system must include:

a part recording by name, date of birth and unique identifier, if any;

persons who are prohibited from working with children;

a part recording by unique identifier persons to whom a prohibition notice has been issued;

a part recording by unique identifier the date on which each working with children check is conducted in respect of a person;

a part recording by a unique identifier persons in relation to whom a prohibition notice has been revoked; and

a part recording identifying a person to whom a unique identifier has been issued.

I hope to make it abundantly clear that if the member for Lee were on it, the list would not read ‘Stephen Mullighan’: it would have the identifier number.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As a point of clarification for this same area in new section 22E, new section 22E(2) provides: 'The records management system may be inspected (without charge) by any person.' Can the Deputy Premier just clarify for me what process will be required to enable any person to inspect the records?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In addition to everything I have just said, my understanding is that if a person comes in and seeks to have access to what is proposed here, the protocol in relation to that has not yet been determined. That is still being worked through as to how it will apply and what information will be made available.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I have to say that that is very concerning to me because this is incredibly sensitive information that we are going to hold for South Australians. We should remind ourselves that more than 22 per cent of South Australians have a working with children check, so this is a very significant proportion.

Following on from this, if a person is accessing and looking at this record system, how are they restricted from altering information on the system? Obviously, if they are looking at it, it is not a printed copy they are looking at. They are going to look at it as a database.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not really understand why the member, who has been a former minister in this space—perhaps she did not ever avail herself of the opportunity to find out how this operates—but we have a unit—

The Hon. Z.L. Bettison interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Ramsay, I will direct the Attorney to the answer.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I appreciate that the member says she is concerned. I am concerned that she does not know about this. Nevertheless, let's be clear for the benefit of others in the committee as to how this is going to operate.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have just read out a very comprehensive—

The CHAIR: Attorney, do not respond to interjections, please.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I am ignoring him.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: why is it appropriate for the Attorney to impute improper motives of members and insult them and then, when the member fights back, the Chair of the committee attacks the opposition? How is that appropriate?

The CHAIR: What I said, member for West Torrens, if you recall, is that I asked the Attorney not to respond to interjections and to return to answer. I am going to ask her to do that again. Thanks, Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The inspection of records is not like some public register where everybody can just walk in like they are at a library and plug in and just read everyone's history. This list, which I read out, sets out those who are prohibited. It does not have the details of the circumstances or whatever, but it is a list for the purposes, particularly for prospective employers, of checking whether someone who is proposing to come and work or volunteer with them actually has already been identified by virtue of a conviction under previous offences, the presumptive disqualification that is going to come into effect, etc. That is an important tool.

The member's government brought into this parliament a regime that severely penalises anyone who employs someone, paid or volunteer, in their industry or workplace or government or non-government organisation, that utilises services in working with children. That is why it is there. It is there to ensure that any prospective employer, who could be very severely penalised if they do not, checks and is able to do that.

We have to have a system like that because this is not just a system where we are punishing those who are convicted and then try to work with children. We have introduced a regime and tightened it under the former government to ensure that as much as possible we impose a very severe obligation on the employer not just on the employee. That big increase in penalty has got to have a means by which the prospective employer is able to carry out their responsibility to diligently employ that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have a point of order. It is very simple: the member asked if, when inspecting this list, it can be altered while inspecting. It was a very simple question.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, she did not.

The CHAIR: And the Attorney is continuing her answer.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: When this occurs, it will show a person who is the subject of the search's name, the date of birth and the unique identifier number, where available. For example, where there are multiple John Smiths, the date of birth and UIs help ensure the result is the correct person as provided. So, if there are 15 Stephen Mullighans out there (hopefully not; one is bad enough), each of those will have a unique identifier number to ensure that that is the reference the applicant viewer can see to ensure that that is done. They then have the capacity to say, 'I have checked the register. The checks been done. They are not a prohibited person and I am satisfied for the purposes of taking this person on that I have complied with my applications as an employer.'

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Following on from some of my earlier questions on the bill, I understand that in the past a requesting organisation would identify people within the system to have a working with children check and that an individual in that organisation would have the ability to check for a unique identifier. What is the process of that individual in an organisation being registered to be able to identify and log onto the system? Can you detail that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There are two things; one is the process I have just outlined. The employer in that scenario will have accessed that material and have the capacity to continually update that, which is another important initiative in that regard. I think what you are saying is that, as an example, if the Burnside Lions has a regular person who wants to check whether their volunteers are in order, not prohibited and still current, can they in some way register as an organisation that can just check whenever it likes? Is that what you are asking me?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: What is the process not just of the company or organisation registering but of the officer within that company? Within the Lions Club, it may well be the secretary or the president. What is the process under this amended act for that person to be identified?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is no statutory regulation around how they appoint somebody or who it is. Remember, this is the process. If the person wants to work or volunteer, they are issued a number because they have gone through the right process. They go along to the Lions Club or prospective employer, and that person then has an obligation to check. They cannot just fill out a form and say, 'I've done my check.'

That has to be checked if you are going to employ these people because this is the new regime that we have introduced for employers, and so on. They then follow that up and register interest in that person, but they cannot register in a block forever. That is, you cannot go in and say, 'I'm with the Burnside Lions and I now want to check on Zoe Bettison.' You cannot just get in the door and then look at whatever you like. You can only look in to check whether that number of your worker is there.

The CHAIR: Member for Ramsay, I am not going to give you the call. You have had four questions, and I concede that one was a point of clarification. The member for Playford has the call.

Mr BROWN: Under new section 22A, the new act will require employees to provide their full name, address, date of birth and unique identifier, which comes from the check they have previously performed. Knowing that this information allows employers not only to check people's information on the register but to potentially get other information from the department, what protections exist for employees that their unique identifier will not be disclosed to third parties by their employer?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is not a regulatory regime in this legislation to say what information may be disclosed. Obviously, if your employer now keeps a copy of your driver's licence in the file they might have on you, a record of your employment, your number is on that. I suppose that could be accessible to other people who work in that business or that NGO or church group, whatever the organisation is. What is perhaps being misunderstood here, and I want to make it absolutely clear, is that it is just a number. A code of details about personal information does not come with it.

It is not a code that you go into and get all this personal information. The purpose of it is to be able to access whether you are on a list. We have to have it because we are making it a penalty for people who are in an employment situation if they do not do it. They can be prosecuted and fined severely; I think there is even a prison term under the new rule in some areas. You cannot just come along and say, 'I didn't know. He told me he had a check and I just took him on the next Monday.' You are not allowed to do that.

As a parliament, in 2016 we imposed a much higher standard in relation to this matter. So, firstly, we have to be able to provide a means by which the information about this is kept in a secure repository, which has been the basis of questions by other members of the committee, and, secondly, we have to make it accessible to those who have the legal obligation in relation to this matter.

That is the process. Some of that information—that is, the identifier number once it is provided by the worker to the prospective employer—will presumably be on their file of some kind. It might be scanned into some computer file on the employer's records—Burnside Lions, if we want to still use the same organisation—for the purpose of then doing that check.

Mr BROWN: Obviously, there are no additional protections?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not in this legislation.

Mr BROWN: The legislation sets out a process for how data will be matched against the register. What, if any, controls will be taken on those who actually perform the match on behalf of organisations? Is there any recording and checking with other third parties, for example, the police, on who is actually doing these checks?

I might clarify that to assist the Attorney. New subsection (1)(c)(ii) says that they must provide the name and contact details of the person who verified the matters referred to in paragraph (b), which is that the screening check was conducted and the person is not a prohibited person. Are any third parties—for example, the police—going to be checking those names to make sure that nothing untoward is occurring?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not think so. I think I understand the question. The central assessment unit is the repository of information. It gets it from other sources, and it may be from the police. We have been through that before. Importantly, the information that is there, accessible via this number, has to be able to be continually accessed. The reason for that is that the central assessment unit needs to have registered who the Burnside Lions are, or some employer, because, if that person becomes a prohibited person, they need to be able to say, 'I will now contact that employer and advise them.' In the real-time upgrading of this, they are immediately notified and then there are certain processes that they can undertake in respect of suspension from employment or whatever.

The important thing here is that it is a list in a secure repository of information. You cannot just go in there and look it up, like on a library computer. We have to make it available to the person who is seeking to do the volunteer work and/or employed work and we need to make it available for the prospective employer or supervisor of the volunteer service. It needs to be ongoing for both so that that information can be real time, which is exactly what we are all trying to achieve.

Mr BROWN: I note that new section 22A talks about the fact that the screening check needs to be verified in accordance with the regulations under 22A(1)(b). Will those regulations enable, for example, a third party provider to do that or does it need to be the central unit that does that verification? Could a private provider do those verifications?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The provision for the screening check under new section 22A(1)(b)(i) is that it is exclusively by the central assessment unit.

Ms HILDYARD: Attorney, can you please outline how information about these new requirements will be communicated to NDIS LAC personnel?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If the member is referring to how the local area coordinators under the new scheme will be informed, essentially, if and when this legislation passes, there will be a communications package. I have referred to that earlier in the committee. In addition to that, the NDIS will have its own communications arrangements to ensure that it is followed through. In fairness, some members have had inquiries. Certainly, the member for Hurtle Vale has indicated that she has had inquiries from, I assume, constituents who are saying, 'How is this going to work for me? What do I have to do?', etc.

Obviously, we are not in a position to go out with that communications package, the website material and the details that I referred to earlier in the committee until legislation has passed. Assuming it does, that will go out almost forthwith so that we can ensure that we have the transition in the next six weeks. There will need to be a concentrated communications program and website information to ensure that is done, but I understand that, as the commonwealth is obviously involved in the NDIS aspect of it, they will also have their own direct communication.

Ms HILDYARD: Attorney, given that LAC personnel often have roles as direct employers, as advisers to employers in a particular area and right across the state, as advisers to carers and as advisers to NDIS participants themselves, what additional responsibilities does the Attorney see coming about through these new requirements? What additional supports would be provided to LAC personnel given the complexity of their role and, often, the duality of their role in relation to these new requirements?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The local area coordinators are commonwealth-funded positions. I think that they have a very strategic and important role in the rollout of the new system, but they are not really participants in relation to the obligations under this legislation.

Ms HILDYARD: But they are. They absolutely are. They are often direct employers as well as advisers.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They are staff, maybe, but I am simply making—

Ms HILDYARD: They are.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member can argue the point in that sense. The obligations here relate to the working with children checks as to the volunteer or employee and the employer, whereas the coordinators are employees of the commonwealth structure.

Ms HILDYARD: They are also employers. That is my point. They are also direct employers and advisers.

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, you are called to order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If the question is, in fact, as an employer—

The CHAIR: Attorney, just a moment. I am going to talk to the member for Reynell. You have asked your question, and you are repeatedly interjecting. I am calling you to order. Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If the question is, as an employer, do the local area coordinators have any obligation other than under this legislation, the answer is no. They are the same as every other employer. Do they have any other resources to undertake their obligations in relation to this? This is the law. The reason we are doing this is to protect children. Every employer has to do this, whether they are going to pay them or have them as volunteers. They have to comply with the law. Local area coordinators, if they employ somebody in this area, have to comply with the law. It is as simple as that.

Ms HILDYARD: Given that they are direct employers, advisers to employers, advisers to participants and advisers to carers, they have an incredibly complex role as well as being direct employers, as you state. Will there be any additional communication or any additional support provided to these lacks, particularly given the issues that were experienced over some time due to the federal government's lack of speed with which they appointed those local area coordinators?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not sure that the rapidity with which someone was employed is relevant to the question, but they are not paid for or provided by the state. It is not proposed to give them any extra money or resources to do this job, the same as we are not going to give it to the Burnside Lions and we are not going to be giving it to employers anywhere else in the state. This is the law; it is going to be national law. It was actually introduced by the member's government and we supported it. We have been working hard to try to bring the practical aspects to ensure that it actually comes into effect and we will be doing everything possible to ensure that it commences on 1 July this year.

Mr BOYER: New section 22A(1)(b) talks about a screening check being required for the preceding five years. Does a screening check from another jurisdiction in Australia qualify under that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it has been clear in the debate on this and on previous legislation that each state has its own screening process. They are not all exactly the same. Obviously, everyone is trying to work to all be in real time and I think that has been occurring over a number of years. I will check as to whether that is transferable or inter-recognisable between the jurisdictions

I am advised that as a result of the fact that they are still not all exactly the same, the transfer of that will not be adequate. Therefore, we impose South Australian standards for those in South Australia. We think it is going to be pretty good. We will not necessarily be recognising others as an immediate transfer and what we call mutual recognition of other jurisdictions at this point, but we are working on it. Once the NDIS screening nationally is mirrored, then we will get on with it.

Mr BOYER: You spoke about mutual recognition from other jurisdictions. Will there be no mutual recognition from any other Australian jurisdictions recognised or provided at this point?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that no-one has actually started this yet because this is the NDIS regime we are talking about here. We are aiming for 1 July 2019. We understand that New South Wales is looking at 1 July 2020. As they come online, I expect, if there has been an advancement in relation to the harmonisation of this sort of matter around the country, we will see recognition come into place. At the moment, none of them have even started yet, so we are going to get them started and as others catch up, in the sense of a standard of some harmonisation, then we can look at some mutual recognition.

Mr BOYER: Am I right in thinking, then, that if this bill were to be passed and come into effect at this point in time, we still accept screening checks from other Australian jurisdictions that potentially do not have the same veracity as the South Australian one that will be conducted out of the central assessment unit?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: At the moment, we do not accept those as a standard that obviates them to undertake a state South Australian one but, in the future, that may come to pass.

Ms COOK: On new sections 22A, B and C, can I ask you for clarification on the final notations in each of those sections, that the proceeding direction 'does not apply in relation to a prospective employee who is an excluded person'? Can you clarify what that means? I believe it is the same in all of them.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The meaning of an excluded person under the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 is:

(a) a person who undertakes child-related work in the same capacity as the child or children to whom the work relates;

(b) a person who employs a child, or who supervises an employed child, where the work undertaken by the child is not child-related work;

(c) a member of South Australia Police or the Australian Federal Police;

(d) a person to whom subsection (3) applies—

I will come back to that in a minute. The meaning also includes:

(e) any other person of a class declared by the regulations to be included in the ambit of this subsection.

Subsection (3) relates to persons under the seven-day arrangement, if I can paraphrase that. That is what is in the act. It is proposed that exactly the same definition for 'excluded person' will be part of the disability aspect, and that is why it is in each of those.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, unfortunately, or fortunately, whichever way you look at it.

Ms COOK: To clarify, that is people who are not required to go through the screening process?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

The CHAIR: The member for Cheltenham may have a question. Before I give the member for Cheltenham the call, I am going to—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! I am just going to speak briefly. I know the member for Reynell feels that she may have had only two questions. However, she had the call three times and, although she made the point that it was a point of clarification, to my mind at least it was a separate question. I just thought I would make that clear.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: No, there is another question. The member for Cheltenham.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, given the slow pace at which the LACs were implemented in South Australia and given this new set of requirements that LACs will now have to contemplate, did the minister advocate at the most recent ministerial council for additional resources to enable them to be equipped to provide advice to the NDIS employers and their participants?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: First, I did not attend the council referred to, so I cannot tell you about the detail of that; it is not an Attorney-General's agenda item. However, I am advised that all of that process relating to the obligations of the coordinators that are part of the new process, the new model, is really all within the commonwealth framework and a matter I am not privy to. As far as I know, they have been appointed, a full complement for South Australia, but I do not know about the other jurisdictions yet. I think we are a bit ahead of the curve in South Australia because we had the benefit of having a trial for the children's disability aspect as one of the early uptakes of that.

Nevertheless, as I said, I cannot answer that in relation to what else has been canvassed there, but they are in place and we are trying, as best we can, to make sure that our end of the deal is fulfilled, including getting this legislation through so that we have a suitable regime for the purpose of implementing the protections set out herein.

Clause passed.

Clause 23.

Ms COOK: I have a general request for clarification around what this clause actually does in the bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This is a provision equivalent to section 18 of the prohibited persons act and is included to ensure consistency with that act. This clause requires that an employer must not continue to employ a person working with people with disability unless a screening check has been conducted in relation to that work in the preceding five years. So it is to be consistent and just repeats that obligation in this bill.

Clause passed.

Clause 24.

Ms COOK: In regard to increasing the fine, the expiation, from $10,000 to $50,000, what modelling and consultation happened around that increase?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Regarding the insertion here for fines now to be set at $50,000 for offences against regulations, the amount is necessarily raised to $50,000 because the regulations that will operationalise aspects of part 6 of the screening regime that are not required in the act will likely incorporate similar offences that are contained in the prohibited persons act that attract penalties of up to $50,000. In short, the former government thought it was a pretty good idea to set those penalties: so do we, and that is why they are there.

Ms COOK: Just to clarify it, there was no additional consultation regarding that at all?

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Well, I did not come back to ask if they wanted it even higher.

Ms COOK: There are a number of clauses in the uncommenced Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 that place obligations upon employers—part 4, division 2. I understand the Statutes Amendment (Screening) Bill seeks to amend the prohibited persons act. How then does the Deputy Premier see this operating for those individuals who are undertaking child-related work but who are not employed?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can the member be a bit more specific? I am struggling to find the sections she is referring to.

Ms COOK: They are in the prohibited persons act, part 4, division 2. I do not actually have it in front of me; I shredded it, sadly.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have a copy of it here. You say that part 4, division 2, is the part that has not yet been proclaimed—and therefore what?

Ms COOK: How does that operate for people who are undertaking child-related work but who are not employed?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Do you mean that they are just not at work; is that what you are saying?

Ms COOK: If they are volunteers and such.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the law is pretty clear. If you are working with children, whether you are paid or not, you are caught by this regime. The provisions of part 4, division 2, give the steps employers must take in relation to employing a person under the prohibited persons act. As best as I understand it, all that commences on 1 July. You are right that parts of the prohibited persons act were held back until we had sorted out what the regulation was, and we then added this bill in here. You are right in the sense that some regulations have not been proclaimed to commence yet, but they are ready to go. Everything is designed to start on 1 July, if we can. Obviously, completing this bill will help that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When will the government publish the regulations before proclaiming them?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I say that I know that I have signed off on regulations. I know that it was the practice of the previous government sometimes not to even have regulations drafted, most often until after the bill was passed. We have been working very hard in the last 14 months or so (and the same people have been doing this for two years before that) to try to make sure that the law, in statute form, and the regulations are all ready to go. I am advised that the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Regulations 2019, which I have in front of me, are the ones that are effective on 1 July 2019 and that the balance, to go with the Disability Inclusion Act 2018, is yet to be finalised.

Ms COOK: Can the Deputy Premier advise the committee about who provided submissions in relation to the draft regulations and how many were received?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not sure that we provided that but, if we have not, we will get a list of those in relation to the regulations. It was a very long list, I know that.

Ms COOK: I looked on the Attorney-General's website—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: I am glad that somebody does.

Ms COOK: —it's very nice—to look for submissions in this round of consultation, but there is not any information there. Is there an intent to post those types of lists, or is that not something the Attorney will be doing?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No. I think I have said this before, and I will make it clear for the purposes of this legislation, that whilst we provide a list of and are agreeable to information being provided as to who is consulted, the particulars of those consultations, if they are government agencies, are not made available.

Certainly, I invite members to look at independent stakeholders in relation to matters. Groups such as the Law Society of South Australia often provide comprehensive and useful submissions in relation to a lot of our law down here, and they go online on their own sites. A lot of this work was done across departments and across agencies.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: What is left to be drafted of the regulations pertaining to the Disability Inclusion Act?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: What is the time estimate of when that drafting will be completed and those regulations will be available?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that we do not know the answer to that, but they are on their way.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Is it the government's expectations that the regulations will be finalised and available before the sought commencement date of the act?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think we are going to be pretty much ready to go on 1 July in relation to the prohibited persons legislation. We have the regulations ready. They are out, published and ready to go.

The national scheme in relation to the NDIS, which we are aiming in South Australia to commence on 1 July, we cannot be certain of yet. They are still working through some of the aspects of it. So, we are a little bit held up with the advance at that level as well being part of the national scheme. However, it has started, and, as I say, rather than waiting until legislation is passed, we are getting on with trying to make sure as best we can that that is ready.

For example, if the disability aspects do not actually commence, if the scheme does not commence on 1 July 2019, we will still have achieved everything in relation to the prohibited persons legislation because that regime is complete and ready to go. Actually, that is not through the commonwealth parliament yet, so I suspect it will be a little while before it gets through there.

Ms HILDYARD: Attorney, what consultation was undertaken about the regulations with unions who represent workers in the disability sector?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to the disability sector, because they have not yet been completed, nobody.

Ms HILDYARD: Are you saying that no unions were consulted about the regulations?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They have not actually been completed to be drafted to actually consult on yet.

Ms HILDYARD: You said that there was a comprehensive list of agencies that you spoke with about the regulations in drafting them.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There are two sets of regulations. Perhaps the member was not listening to that. We have the prohibited persons act regulations. They are out there and they have been consulted on. There is a long list. We have been working on them for years, blah, blah, blah. They are out there ready to go on the basis that the act commences there on 1 July 2019. Disability is not yet completed to be drafted, so it has not actually gone out to anybody to consult on yet, including a union.

Ms HILDYARD: Will the Attorney consult those unions who represent workers in the disability sector when consulting about those regulations?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy for the member to refer any list of people that she thinks should be consulted in relation to those matters. They can be sent to my office. I will ensure that they are passed on to the Minister for Human Services.

Ms HILDYARD: In the rollout of the NDIS, and given the last group of participants were those who were impacted by mental illness, and they were the last group of participants to transition to the NDIS, can you speak a little bit about the consultation in relation to the regulations with those organisations that advocate for people with mental illness?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not sure what regulations are being sought, but I did mention during the course of the committee on this that last week I actually attended at the Public Advocate's office and met with a number of people, including the new disability advocate, Mr David Cowdrey, who is consulting with and coordinating discussion with the Department of Human Services personnel and Public Advocate personnel to ensure that all of this is in place. I did not have any indication in the discussions I had with him that there were difficulties in relation to that.

As you know, the Public Advocate has a strong role in relation to disability and mental health—obviously people with cognitive impairment and other aspects as well. For the area you are particularly focused on, I am not aware of any concerns, but you are right to the extent that in due course we need to look at how we are going to manage and make provision for the mental health sector. At the moment, that is not before us.

Clause passed.

Clause 25 passed.

Title.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have a question on the title. It is not unprecedented, sir. I understand that the Chair has made a ruling, which I will adhere to. I received an email from the Hon. Michelle Lensink from another place advising this house—this committee—that if this bill does not pass the committee stage and house by 5.30pm this Tuesday 14 May the bill cannot commence as the government outlined.

I ask the Attorney-General to explain that email to the house because the house is the master of its own destiny. The idea that a member of the Legislative Council can dictate to this committee the timing of our conduct and our examinations of legislation is highly disrespectful. There should be no quarrel between the houses, but this minister has sought fit to email all members of the House of Assembly, demanding that we pass a bill by a certain date or time. In past parliaments, that could be considered a contempt of parliament. I do not think that will occur here, because of the iron laws of arithmetic, as Malcolm Turnbull would say, but I find this message strange, offensive and not in keeping with the good conduct—

Mr Duluk: Is this a speech or a question on the title?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Both. It is a committee. You are entitled to. I know you are new, but perhaps you can learn.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So I put to the government that I would like for them to explain—

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, can I just respond to the member for Waite and to members more broadly. On page 89, standing order 364 states:

a Member other than the Member in charge of the Bill, motion or amendment may not speak more than three times on any one question, nor for more than fifteen minutes on any one occasion;

So the member for West Torrens and any other member is entitled to do that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Perhaps he lost wisdom when he shaved his beard. That was the problem.

An honourable member: Yours?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Mine was a thing of beauty, though. That is the difference.

The CHAIR: Back to the matter at hand, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There was never any question of bipartisan support for this legislation, but the idea that the house cannot inquire into it and to have a junior member of the cabinet tell this parliament when it can and cannot conduct itself or when it should be completed by is offensive. I cannot think of another time in my 21 years here when a minister of either persuasion, other than the Hon. Michelle Lensink, has done this.

I do not remember any time under the Brown-Olsen government or the Kerin government when they ever demanded of the then opposition that a bill be passed by a certain time or date. I do not remember any demands on us. I stand to be corrected on this, but I do not recall demanding that the house or the Legislative Council consider a bill or motion by a certain date or time. It is the height of arrogance and I think it demeans not only what we are attempting to do here but the minister herself.

The Hon. Michelle Lensink, I think, devalues the role we have in a bicameral parliament where we have two houses considering a measure. Both houses are independent, and both houses are able to go through a bill, clause by clause, as set out by standing orders, so that members can get a good understanding of what the bill does and whether there are any unintended consequences. Indeed, there have been some very good amendments made in committee on the basis of questioning from crossbenchers and sometimes by learned government members who have asked questions of their own executive about the implementation of a bill.

So I will not be taking any advice from the Hon. Michelle Lensink. To try to play politics with a bill like this I think is appalling. Again, every member in this entire parliament comes to this bill and comes to this committee with the intent of trying to get the best outcome possible. Why? Because we all want to protect the most vulnerable in our community: those little ones and the people who need protecting. The idea that there has to be a set deadline, given the fact that there have been delays since coming into office in having to consider this bill, and given that the bill that we are amending was passed in 2016, is a bit rich indeed.

The minister in the other place should have a long, hard look at herself for what she is demanding of this house. All we have done is to execute our duties to the best of our abilities. Not one member, including the Attorney-General, who has answered our questions, has done anything other than attempt to do the right thing by the committee of this parliament. To have this member email everyone en masse, as if she is some authority from on high, and demand of us that we pass a bill should upset every member of this committee, not just the opposition members, because it does an injustice to government members who may have questions of their own bill and their own executive.

It is a great tradition in this parliament to have crossbenchers. Indeed, I remember the former father of the house Graham Gunn would speak at length on every clause of every measure of a bill because he believed it was his right, and he would not have been lectured to by anyone about having to sit down and be quiet and to pass a bill by a certain time. I ask members opposite who are not in the executive to consider this email and what it represents. It represents the height of arrogance from a member of the executive trying to impose their will on the parliament. Parliaments are established to keep the executive in check, not the other way around.

We do not answer to the executive in this chamber: the executive answers to this chamber and this parliament. It works differently, and this minister clearly misunderstands her responsibilities. It behoves her to apologise to members of the parliament for attempting to somehow set a deadline on us in executing our duties. We have executed our duties diligently. We have asked appropriate questions, we have been given answers and we are satisfied. That is how the process should work—not by some sort of edict from the honourable member in the other place to the members of this house about how we conduct ourselves.

It has other repercussions because it could aid the disorderly conduct of this parliament to have the other place dictate to us when we should and should not complete our deliberations on a bill that they have sent to us. It goes to show the inexperience of this minister, the inexperience in this minister's conduct of her duties and the arrogance, already 14 months in, of this minister and the processes of the parliament.

The CHAIR: Before I call the Attorney to respond, I am going to suggest to the committee that the Attorney is responsible for the carriage of this bill. She is not necessarily responsible for an email sent by another minister. Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am going to read the email that went out on 9 May, which I am presuming went to all members of parliament. It states:

Dear colleagues

Please be advised the Government has sought advice regarding the timing of debate on the Statutes Amendment (Screening) Bill 2019. To allow commencement of this legislation as soon as possible, the House of Assembly debate needs to be concluded by 5.30pm this Tuesday 14 May. If you have any concerns about this proposition, please contact me.

Michelle Lensink

Minister for Human Services

I utterly reject the statements made by the member that some kind of issued demand has come from the minister as to how we conduct our practice in this house. I agree with the member that it is entirely up to the house to have the conduct of its own affairs here and we are entitled to maintain that. It is perfectly appropriate for the minister to alert members to the time frames that we are working to, and she has done that by the email that she has issued. That is not a demand: it is a piece of information that has been circulated to us.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: That is false.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member asserts that it is false but, in any event, that is the information she has made available to us as members for us to consider in our deliberation of the bill. I do not know, perhaps I was waiting for some sort of valedictory speech or something from the member for West Torrens in that little missive, but I utterly reject what he said in relation to this matter. We are in control of the destiny of this house. If members in this house do want us, though, to progress this matter to give it its best possible chance of being implemented and effective from 1 July 2019, which will be three years since we passed the law on this matter, then I would urge them to bear that in mind and maintain a position of the swift passage of the matter in this house.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would ask the Deputy Premier if she can advise the house who set this arbitrary time line and why was it deemed necessary?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I suggest these matters be taken up with the author of the note. I am just indicating the way I read it. I thought it was helpful information, but if other members want to take it up, do as she suggests: get in touch with her.

The CHAIR: As I indicated earlier, member for Lee, my feeling is that the Attorney is responsible for the bill that we are in committee on now, not for an email sent by another minister.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, the Deputy Premier has taken on the responsibility to bring the bill before the house and we are discussing the timeliness of its proclamation and when its contents come into effect. This house, indeed this whole parliament, has been advised that there is an issue of timeliness in the passage of the bill. I do not think it is too much to ask that we put to the minister responsible for the passage of the bill through this place why this deadline was set and on what basis it was set.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Ask her.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You just read it out.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: And it says, if you have any questions or concerns about it, ask her.

The CHAIR: Yes, I think the member for Lee and the member for West Torrens have made their point and now the member for Kaurna is going to make his point on this matter, on the title.

Mr PICTON: My question is to the Attorney-General. Has the Attorney-General had any advice given to her in regard to when the bill needs to be proceeded through this house to allow proper implementation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Only from the advisers I have here today and had on the preceding day. I think I have repeated this many times. To facilitate the commencement on 1 July, the communications program, which the member for Hurtle Vale has asked diligent questions about, and the program of completion of regulations, etc., would require us to pass this today on the basis that it gets back to the Legislative Council.

On the information I have, we put at risk the orderly progression of the bill as of 1 July, when it currently proclaims to commence the residue of the act. I am advised that we need to move it along if we are to achieve that. If the house decides that they want to hold it up, or you have more questions or whatever, then so be it, but you are on notice.

Mr PICTON: That is an interesting turn of phrase. Given the Attorney says that she has received advice in terms of the need to pass it today, has the Attorney received any advice as to what particular time today the bill needs to be passed in order for those processes the Attorney outlined to be put into effect?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is now 5.30pm. It may well be that the other place has risen, but I do not know. We do not know yet.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Only the government could adjourn the council. Did you adjourn it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: For goodness sake, Mr Chairman—

The CHAIR: Order! The member for West Torrens does not have the call. Attorney, do you have anything else to say?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have anything else to contribute to the committee. Obviously, if they do, and it is a contribution of positive information, we will sit here and listen to it.

Ms HILDYARD: So that I am really clear and understand your explanation about a particular program of communication and regulations needing to be developed to meet a particular deadline, could you specifically talk about the consequences of passing it by 5.30pm today, as opposed to 5.30pm tomorrow, 11am tomorrow, or whenever it might be? Why 5.30pm particularly today? It seems to me that there must be a very, very tight time frame to have such a specific time of 5.30pm on a particular day suggested to us. Could you talk about what the consequences are between 5.30pm today and, for example, 5.30pm tomorrow or 11am tomorrow or Thursday.

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, we have your question and your point. We have just heard word that the council is up. Attorney?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, then there is not much point in my answering.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (17:32): I rise to speak again on the Statutes Amendment (Screening) Bill. Firstly, I want to put on record how disappointed I am with the conduct of the minister in the other place in regard to the email discussed during the committee stage and also some of the other conduct around the bill. After the last sitting week, allegations were made on radio and social media that the opposition was, in fact, unduly wasting time or trying to delay the passage of the bill. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We merely sought to apply scrutiny to the bill, based on the consultation and questions that had been offered to us during the course of events leading up to the stage when the bill came up for debate, while we were deliberating on it between being given our briefings by the government. Between times, they were made aware of a whole range of consequences that we felt, and had heard, and raised ourselves about the change to conditions around screening for volunteers. The perception of people who came to us was that this would be a breach or a broken promise by the government.

To reiterate what members said earlier, to receive an email this week demanding that we have this bill dealt with by 5.30pm today was surprising and in pretty bad taste, to be honest. We have gone through this bill deeply. We raised valid questions, I believe, about how and why the money will be paid by volunteers once they become employed. We raised some valid questions, I believe, around how that will be scrutinised by the department and how it will be policed by the department. Through committee, we managed to really dig into the data sharing and a whole plethora of other issues.

From my personal position, I would like to thank the Attorney-General, members of the department and advisers who assisted during that process because it provided us with a huge amount of information that we did not have before out of briefings. When you are in a chamber across from the person you are opposing in terms of a portfolio, it is very difficult to have that opportunity and to have the Attorney and advisers be able to provide such a range of answers to us. I appreciate that and thank them. One of the issues to raise when we are accused of delaying—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hurtle Vale, I remind you that this is a third reading speech and that the content of your contribution really needs to pertain to the bill itself and the clauses within the bill. I have given you some latitude thus far, but I bring you back to the bill itself.

Ms COOK: Thank you for your guidance on that. What we were trying to do throughout the course of our questioning was to ensure, for example, that someone who volunteered 3,000 hours a year did not have to pay for a working with children check if they undertook a few hours of employment. We have been told that that constitutes delaying the bill, and I disagree. I think through the range of questions we asked we have been able to confirm exactly what is happening so that we can better inform the thousands of volunteers who live in our community.

When the bill came into this house two weeks ago, the government did the second reading explanation and then adjourned the debate. We went through, expecting that we were going to do our contributions at that time, but we had to wait until the next day. That is the last point I will make on delays.

In terms of the substance of this bill, the opposition still remains concerned about the ability, and the pathway, to get the money back from people who translate from volunteer to even a tiny amount of paid employment. We hold that that is a break of the election commitment to ensure that there are free screening checks. There was never a statement that the free screening checks will only be for people who are unemployed. We find out now that that is not the case, and we believe that the scrutiny we applied to the clauses was valid.

In terms of linking some of the election commitments with the bill itself (and I understand that the bill is complex because it ties together a whole range of other complicated legislation), a document was released 18 months or so ago by the now government saying that volunteers are a vital part of the non-government and non-for-profit sector and that we need to foster an environment that encourages the next generation of volunteers to get involved, particularly young and new retirees. I could not agree with that more.

However, when we then look at what has happened within this bill, where volunteers who undertake a few hours of paid work—and, potentially, they are the young people going into paid work—I am not sure that that does encourage the next generation of volunteers to get involved. I have received correspondence from clubs, community groups and members of the public who are not happy about these changes. I thank them for that.

There are questions around the $315 expiation notice, which is spoken about in this bill. In many circumstances, a person who undertakes a few hours of paid employment and has that volunteer check could have to pay, on top of the screening fee, a $315 expiation fee if they go over seven days of work, which is not clearly defined.

It is pretty gobsmacking, to be honest, but I am sure that we will see the hurly-burly advertising campaign and marketing come out to explain to the people exactly how this seven-day trigger will happen and how they will be notified. As you have heard today and last week, Mr Deputy Speaker, we asked a lot of questions about that. We are not satisfied with that warning. In fact, during debate, I believe that the Attorney was not able to get advice that people would be given a warning or some sort of notification that they were about to be in breach or had entered the 28-day period.

I hope that the government's reflection on that part of the debate happens and that, through regulation, they make some commitment to people that a sufficient warning will be provided before they get hit with the $315 fine, which they can ill afford if they have only had seven or eight hours of work. I believe that is vital in terms of people's fear and anxieties around this bill and how it changes the commitment to free checking. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you know that, for many families, this $100, $200 or $300 will take food off their table. It is a lot of money for some people to have to pay, and it worries me that they are not going to get any warning of that.

I think that the government should have consulted a little more proactively on this bill prior to setting some of these rules in place within the legislation. I know that there was no broad consultation because the people who I expected would have been consulted came to me after the bill was tabled in the upper house and said that they had not been spoken to. I will not relate directly to those people or reflect on them or leave it open for anyone to question their honesty or integrity. I will just say that they came, and it worries me that that did not happen. The impact on the community in regard to their expectation around the free screenings has not yet been fully appreciated.

There has been repeated questioning about the payment and the process. Some of the innuendo that has been thrown around has veered into territory that is, frankly, a little insulting. Implications have been made about people deliberately taking out a volunteer check so that they can rort or extort, or whatever term you want to use, a free screening for employment. The notion is that someone would say 'I'm going to get a free volunteer check and then go for a job in two months' time once my check comes through' to avoid paying $107.20 or $108 or whatever it is. I do not know how people think like that.

It would never cross my mind that somebody who intends to work in a caring sector—and, let's be honest, most of the sectors that we do screening checks for are caring sectors—would pre-emptively go and scab a free volunteer check so that they do not have to pay for it when they work. It is beyond me. I find that pretty insulting. I find it a bit strange that people who come into this place and who want to serve the community and work with the community have that type of view of people. It just shows that they do not trust the people of South Australia in relation to this matter.

The government thinks that people are out to do the wrong thing in that respect, and that is unfortunate. I hope that we have pointed out clearly enough that at least the people on the our side of the chamber would never intend to do that and that by asking many questions on the legislation through the committee stage we have been able to provide some accountability to our constituents and show that we are standing up for them.

Many of the people who came to me and said they had not been consulted, and who said that they did not like the changes that were happening, actually did not want to be named. They felt that they would be punished by a vengeful minister and that it might put some of their funding at risk. However, I have assured them that they have not been named in the speech or during the committee stage of the bill. I thank them for all the hours of conversations that I have had with them, and all the questions that they provided for us to ask the government.

The government is meant to be for all the people, not against any people. The South Australians I know are not out to get cheap or free volunteer screenings and not pay the bucks. They are not out to deliberately extort $100 from the government. That being said, the opposition does support the original intent of the bill, to streamline the screening process and to ensure that it is nationally consistent.

We understand the time frame for when it has to get through. We understand that this is the next logical step in making the screening system easier to understand for everyday South Australians navigating employment with vulnerable people and also potentially simpler for the department to administer. We want to make sure that screening does not inhibit the work of volunteers so that they can keep doing their fabulous work, giving up their time for their community, but most importantly it will keep children, NDIS participants and vulnerable people much safer. Without any further words, I commend the bill.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (17:47): I rise to make my customary brief contribution on the bill. Like the member for West Torrens, I was at the very least surprised to learn of the minister's urgency in seeing through the passage of this bill, in particular because the bill was first presented to the parliament, as I understand it, on 14 February—or Valentine's Day as some people might be coerced into believing that date to be—and it sat in the other place until it arrived here on 1 May, so a good 2½ months.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, as I indicated to the member for Hurtle Vale, the scope of the debate is more restricted in third reading speeches and limited to the contents of the bill. You are coming to that, I am sure.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Indeed, yes.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am sorry, did the Minister for Transport have some interjection or disorderly conduct he wished to furnish upon us? No, back to his ministerial complaining about—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, you know as well as everyone else that it is disorderly to interject—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —and it is also disorderly to respond, so continue.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, sir. I consider both of us warned. I found it interesting that despite there being 2½ months to consider all 25 clauses of the bill, all 41 pages of the bill, we were only afforded the opportunity from Thursday 2 May, the last sitting date preceding today's sitting date, and, if my memory serves me properly, we were given up until 7pm. In one instance, that would make one think that we had many hours to canvass the bill but it was only slightly over four, and now here we are today given approximately the same amount of time. I realise things do not move at a great pace upstairs, if indeed they move or sit at all. We find ourselves the only house sitting at the moment in the South Australian parliament, which is not an unusual circumstance, unfortunately.

The expectations of the minister about dealing with all 25 clauses of this bill might be slightly different from that perspective than it is from this particular perspective. When it has come to those clauses in particular where I have sought further and better information from the Deputy Premier—I am specifically talking about the discussions that we have had today with regard to clauses 20, 21 and 22, regarding the requirements for the establishment of a records management system—on not so much just the information that is held within it but more particularly the security of that records management system.

Given how important these screening checks are, and given the capacity under the terms of this bill in clause 22 for anyone to access that records management system, I feel like there have been some parts of the bill, particularly with regard to the records management system in clause 22, that have not been adequately worked up.

We have had so much time for the bill to be developed. We have had from 19 March 2018, when the government was formed. We were promised that within the first 100 days all the election commitments, including introducing free screening checks for volunteers, were going to be enacted. Here we are, 14 or so months down the track, and we are still grappling with the terms of this bill and we are grappling with the terms of the provisions of the clauses in this bill within a very tight window in this place.

As the member for West Torrens said, when it comes to those clauses, like clause 22, with regard to the records management system, or when it comes to some of the earlier clauses that we were discussing on the last day in the committee stage, when we were talking about clauses 7, 8 and 9, I think the responsibilities of this place are most important in making sure that the law we are seeking to enact is sufficiently robust. We have concerns, despite our commitment to support this bill and its passage through both houses, that not a lot of this has been sufficiently worked through. We have had the Deputy Premier tell us that there are still regulations that need to be drafted with regard to the Disability Inclusion Act.

Surprisingly, we were told that, while the bill itself might be ready to be proclaimed and enacted by 1 July, which is the target date, we have no such confirmation that these regulations will be necessary. I refer specifically back to the line of questioning today about the records management system, where the Deputy Premier advised us that we do not have any protocols yet that have been established for—and I am quoting from the bill here and from the clause—any person's access to this records management system.

We know, because we are treated to the Deputy Premier's frequent recollections of her thoughts on the Shannon McCoole case, that unfortunately there are some members in our community, including some people who end up working in child protection agencies, who are the last people who should be accessing this sort of information and who are the absolute last people who should be given access to a records management system.

We do not know from the line of questioning on clause 22 whether there will be any restrictions on what information—again, I quote from the clause—any person can access in this records management system. We do not know from the line of questioning to the Deputy Premier whether there is any control over whether somebody accessing a records management system can edit the information in that records management system.

We are talking about screenings for the purposes of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We are all aware that there is a deluge of new organisations which are seeking to be service providers to those deemed by the NDIA to have a disability and so are entitled to support from the government. That deluge of organisations has an even larger deluge of employees who either are or are seeking to work for those organisations in the future which need to avail themselves of the terms of this bill.

The last thing we want to see is an environment where a new organisation with a body of employees has some sort of capacity to check not just the bona fides of their employees and whether they have the appropriate screening checks or whether indeed the opposite is true and they are prohibited people but whether one of those employers seeks to amend that information to try to ensure that to all other people the perception is that all of their employees are fit to be working with disabled people or indeed fit to be working with children. That is not beyond the realms of possibility.

What we should be seeking to do here is make sure we are enacting law that is as tight and robust as possible to minimise the chances of people engaging in such behaviour. We do not have that because we do not have the regulations and we do not have the protocols established. This place cannot be satisfied that even when those regulations are made and those protocols are developed, they will be robust enough because apparently they are still in progress, according to the Deputy Premier.

If the department is still yet to turn its mind to completing these regulations, then I do not see why the hurry is on for 5.30 today, when in fact the other place could not even make it to 5.30. Maybe not enough 20¢ coins went into the slot to keep the lights on up there; who knows?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: It is a full two-hour day.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is a full two-hours day's work, that's right. So I wonder why that deadline was set. Of course, the challenge will now be that we are in the uncharted territory of the minister still working beyond 5.30 and still contemplating her bill, contemplating whether she can still, in the six or seven weeks left to us, avail herself of enacting this legislation and all the clauses within it, to which I am making specific reference.

I would also say that one thing that is most unsatisfactory about the terms of this bill, and the subject of a lot of the questioning during the last brief opportunity we were provided to contemplate this bill, was the circumstance under which a volunteer might be required to repay fees. We were promised that volunteers—any volunteers—would be able to have a free screening check; they would abolish the fees. That was the now government's commitment at the last state election, and now we see this attempt to claw back people who are subsequently deemed to be doing work.

The only problem is that the government cannot tell this place what constitutes work. The Deputy Premier said it was remunerated employment. We know that is not the case because the term 'renumerated employment' is not in the bill. It is quite likely, for example, that we will see volunteers at community clubs, sporting clubs and so on, who are exerting energy in an effort to derive a specific outcome, which I believe is a reasonable definition of work, and who might be provided with some sort of recompense for their efforts.

It might not be money; it might be something else. It might be a slab of beer. It might be some other goods or services that are able to be conferred on that person who has conducted some level of work. That leaves them open to an allegation from somebody else at that organisation that they have conducted paid work, and we have a bill here with clauses within it that do not sufficiently stipulate how we are going here.

Sitting suspended from 17:59 to 19.30.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We were canvassing some of the important clauses that had arisen during the second reading and the committee stage of the Statutes Amendment (Screening) Bill 2019. Prior to the break, I placed on the record my surprise at the missive we all received from the minister about the necessity to expedite the passage of this bill far speedier through this place, where there are far more resident members of parliament than there are in the other place, which, of course, is furnished with many more days to consider the bill than we have been.

I left my comments at clause 9 and the unsatisfied questions and concerns that the opposition raised about the requirement for a volunteer, who is deemed to have conducted work for more than seven days in any 12-month period, to repay the fees for the volunteer screening, which they had hitherto received free of charge. Not only were we unable to unearth a definition of 'work', but we have also been unable to unearth how the department would assess whether somebody had conducted work, other than being advised that the screening unit would essentially rely on other people dobbing in volunteers who were perceived to have conducted work.

This then raises a whole other series of questions about how the department can then make an assessment about who is to be believed in this matter, whether it is the volunteer or whether it is the person who has drawn the department's attention to the fact that that volunteer may not have been able to avail themselves of a free volunteer screening.

We are talking, presumably in the majority of cases, about a $315 expiation fee, but there is a maximum penalty of $5,000, and this is important for us to contemplate. This is an enormous impost that people could be threatened with, let alone be liable for, if there is a determination by the department that they have been conducting work other than as a volunteer beyond which the soon to be act provides for.

It is important that we settle these matters, and we have been unable to settle these matters. Nonetheless, the opposition has indicated its support for this bill. We understand that the minister is most, most anxious for the speedy passage of this bill regardless of these unanswered questions. Notwithstanding the fact that we have not met the hard deadline of 5.30 from the minister in the other place, that thus far we have breached this drop-dead date by two hours and four minutes, that perhaps, among some gnashing of teeth, knitting of brow and wringing of hands, the minister and her—

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: Furrowing.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Furrowing? What did I say?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Furrowing of brow.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, there can be knitting and furrowing of brows. Perhaps the minister can somehow see fit to divert the attentions and resources of her vast bureaucracy to ensure that this bill is given effect by 1 July.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (19:34): Mr Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to have you in the parliament again.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Is this a valedictory speech?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Are you resigning?

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: No, you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, why would I resign? I am in my prime. I am deeply disappointed in the government's conduct on this bill. I think what they are attempting to do is meritorious and, having gone through a robust committee stage of the bill, I think it is fair to say that there is a great deal of commitment on both sides of the parliament to keep the most vulnerable in our community safe from those who mean to do them harm.

What disappoints me is the manner in which the government has conducted itself. I think the Minister for Human Services has done her party and this state a huge disservice in the way she attempted to politicise this issue by calling into question the motives and the operation of the House of Assembly committee on the bill. The minister informed the public that the Labor Party, the opposition, was attempting to delay the passage of the bill. Let's unpack that.

This government was elected in March 2018, ministers were sworn in shortly after that, the bill that this seeks to amend was passed in 2016 and the amendments were brought into the parliament nearly 12 months later. Yet, because we dared to ask questions on two or three occasions on this bill, somehow the delay belongs to us and not government members. It is offensive to me because I have two daughters. It is offensive, I think, to all members of this house and discourteous to the good conduct of this house that the minister would make such an assertion.

To make it worse, the minister, a member of the executive, took it upon herself to inform members of this house that if the bill did not pass by 5.30pm today it could not be enacted in time. I think that claim is false, that claim is not accurate and, in fact, I say that that claim is misleading. It is not backed up with any evidence, it is not backed up with any fact and the truth is that this house is the master of its own destiny.

As to the idea that a member of the executive would inform this chamber and a previous committee that examined the bill that if the bill had not passed by a certain date and time—and time—it could not be enacted, in days gone by that would have been considered a contempt of parliament. I make no such assertion today because I suspect, as I said in my remarks during the committee stage, that it would be ignored by government members to protect their minister.

We have gone through a number of issues in the bill that I think were worthy of examination by a committee of the parliament. What were they? For example, the government went to the election as an opposition promising the people of South Australia that if they were volunteers they would receive free screening checks—free. There was never any qualification of that commitment about having to reimburse the cost of that screening if you did some work later; indeed, if you did do some work later, you would be in breach of the law if you did not pay it back. We know how these things cascade. It was worthy of us to go through that committee stage.

I think that there are far too many examples of the government saying one thing before an election and another afterwards. I think our examination here of what the definition of work actually is shows how difficult it will be for the government to administer this. In effect, the government is criminalising people who may be forgetful and whose only crime is to have received a free screening check—which they thought they would get under this government—but then later on, in a certain time frame, received payment for work they have done. That is not a very good message to encourage people to volunteer.

I do not think the government has thought this through. I think the message we send out to people is important. The message we give people about the value of volunteering is very, very important. I am a former minister for volunteers, and to this day my mother still volunteers. She volunteers for Greek Welfare and prepares hundreds of meals per week that she delivers herself to a number of people in the western suburbs of Adelaide.

That sort of community spirit is alive and well across South Australia. You only have to speak to our Governor about all the agencies and volunteer groups he visits on behalf of all of us to thank them for their contribution. Indeed, as the Speaker would know, there are hundreds if not thousands of volunteers within his own community.

All we wanted to do was make sure that people who volunteer are not turned into criminals because they forget to declare to the government that they have been lucky enough to get some work in very difficult economic times. Often people who find themselves unemployed, or not working, find solace and comfort in volunteering; it is one of the things they do to keep themselves active.

I see it all the time. I see people who are no longer working—actively looking for work but no longer working—who volunteer to keep busy. If I am lucky enough to reach the milestone set by the Deputy Premier, I may consider retirement, but I am still a young man in my 40s—

Mr Picton: A whippersnapper.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —in comparison to some, yes—and then I might like to volunteer my time for the Australian Labor Party in the seat of Bragg.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I could; there are plenty of Independents who would like my support in the seat of Bragg.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I would have to vote for you? It's compulsory, is it? Democracy Vickie Chapman-style: you can vote for anyone you like as long as it is me.

The SPEAKER: Order!

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did we? I hope not. I would hate to lose the Deputy Premier. If we lost her, we would have to invent her. We would have to have someone else to take her place.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: You had Rick Sarre—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Rick Sarre—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is the difference between me and the member for Bragg: I do not think that putting yourself up for election and not being elected is a failure; I see it as participating in the democratic process. What a great service people who run in safe Labor or Liberal seats for the opposing party do for democracy. For example, we run in seats in some regional centres where the Labor Party has no chance of winning, but what a great service we are doing for democracy. Of course, the member for Bragg sees it as a form of treachery for anyone to stand against her—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: I invited him to our declaration of the poll party: he came.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: 'Our declaration of the poll party'. So what are we now? 'We are pleased we have been elected. We have invited you to our morning tea.' Wow! How very cute, the coronation. I would love to be in a backbench committee to hear the explanations, but back to the bill.

In the email sent out to members by the other minister responsible for this act, the Minister for Human Services, we were told that it had to pass by 5.30 today. The explanation we were given by the Attorney-General was that the Legislative Council may rise by 5.30. In my experience, it is the government that adjourn either house and it is the minister who moves the adjournment, and if the government wanted to wait for this bill to pass tonight—as we have done previously, waiting on the Legislative Council to pass legislation—they could have sat, but the Marshall government decided to adjourn the Legislative Council and not sit to receive this bill tonight.

Mr Picton: They could have brought on the rate capping bill.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There are many things the Legislative Council could debate, but it chose not to. Yet the government wrote to House of Assembly members telling us that we had to pass it by 5.30, and the explanation we were given was that the house may adjourn. That destiny is in the control of the government, and I thought it was a poor excuse and a poor reflection on the conduct of the Hon. Michelle Lensink in trying to bully this house into passing legislation and then giving us information that was false, just not true. It is not true.

The passage of this bill at 5.30 today, or 9 o'clock tonight, or 10.30 tonight will make no difference to the commencement of this bill, and every member of this house knows it. The question then is: why send that email? Why? If that statement had been made in this house, I would be on my feet a minute later moving a matter of privilege because it is just not true. Then you have to ask yourself: what does the opposition do when a member of the executive who has coverage of this bill writes to us and says that unless it passes by this date and time, the bill cannot be enacted by 1 July?

We know it is not true. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has only one option other than to accept what we are told by the executive is truthful. We have to accept it. There is no other option for us. We cannot accuse them of lying. We have to accept that what they tell us on these matters is true, yet we know what we were told is not true. All I can surmise is that in a clumsy, childish, adolescent way, the Minister for Human Services has attempted to make a political point about the passage of this bill, which we all support unanimously. Why? What is in it for her? What is in it for the Liberal Party, other than to demean them? I think it was a poor reflection of the way that minister conducts herself in one of the most important portfolios in government.

Mr Speaker, I just want to quote from a document that you, and indeed every member here in the parliament opposite on the government benches, published in February 2018. It states:

If elected in March 2018, a Marshall Liberal Government will abolish all fees payable by volunteers for screening…

The same document goes on to say:

Volunteers are a vital part of the non-government and not-for-profit sector and we need to foster an environment that encourages the next generation of volunteers to get involved, particularly the young and new retirees.

There is nothing in that statement that says 'and, by the way, if 11 months later you get any paid employment and you don't notify us, you could be guilty of a criminal offence, so repay that money'.

Mr Picton: And a $5,000 fine.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: And a $5,000 fine. Thank you for your efforts volunteering, but you have this definition we call 'work' that will be given to us through the regulations. I think it is a very poor message. The truth is that reality hit the government in the face when they were elected. They made this commitment before the election, thinking that through the power of the personality of the Premier they could make it work. They get into office, the Treasury gives the incoming briefs, and then the government realises the cost of their policy, so they begin tinkering with it around the edges.

All it has done now, in truth, is give people cause for concern the next time they make commitments in Newland, in Colton, in King. It will give them cause to consider, 'You didn't tell us this last time. Why should we believe you this time?' Imagine you are a volunteer who wants to get work but has not got work. You have a free screening, you are offered a job in the intervening period and one of the first things you have to do to avoid a $5,000 fine is pay that money back or the government will accuse you of being a criminal. That is what the government has done.

Marginal members on the backbench, who rely on the front bench to give them policy that they can go out and campaign on, have to sell this. They have to go out to the public and volunteers in their community—lifesaving clubs and other organisations that have volunteers—and tell them, 'By the way, there's a clause that we didn't tell you about at the last election. If you do volunteer but then find work, you have to pay the money back. If you don't pay the money back, there's a fine.' If members opposite do not tell them that, have no fear: we will. We will.

I have to say that the outrage from clubs and volunteer organisations about this move by the government is justified. They did not see it coming. There was no anticipation that this is what would occur. They were not warned and I think the consultation was token. I do not think that the government can relate to the economic impact this will have on people who overwhelmingly volunteer. Again, it is a misreading of the public mood and the public sentiment towards volunteers and the way they view what they do. Members are going to be hit in the face with a lot of these decisions in the upcoming budget, when they will have to go out and sell things like privatising our trams and trains, which we have just learned about today.

I also think it will have the impact of dissuading people from entering the workforce. Those of us who are here and on $180,000 a year or more might not think that repaying $315 for a screening test is a lot of money, but if you are unemployed and volunteering and you apply for a job and the pay cheque is prospective rather than retrospective, and you have a certain period of time in which to pay that money back, it can be a burden. Again, it shows how quickly out of touch the government have become with those people they are attempting to serve. While the government claims that they are fulfilling an election promise here, they are not.

I also question the government's narrowing of the scope captured by this screening. The legislation that we have amended overwhelmingly had broader interpretations and allowed a wider catchment of people to be screened or checked. The government has deliberately narrowed that right down and has been very prescriptive about who is tested, who requires a test and who pays or does not pay for a test.

The legislation passed in 2016 was a lot broader. It gave more room for a broader scope of test and check to make sure that anyone who could potentially be working with children or vulnerable people would have to undergo a check. It gave the police commissioner a broader scope. The government has narrowed that right down. Basically, I think they have been overly prescriptive, and the regulations will bear that out. I am sure a lot of members opposite who consider themselves to be liberals would be very surprised at that. I support a broader scope for assessment, and I am disappointed that the government has attempted to narrow that.

In my concluding remarks I will say that there were a lot of contradictions in the answers given to us by the Deputy Premier—contradictory remarks that did not make real sense. I suspect she was not well briefed on the subject matter, but I give her this: her intent was there and she tried. However, I think the committee was let down by some of the answers it received. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (19:54): I rise to give a third reading contribution in relation to the Statutes Amendment (Screening) Bill 2019. As per what the member for West Torrens was saying, on the face of it you would think that this might be an attempt by the government to implement their election promise, when they said to the people of South Australia that they will be introducing free volunteer screening checks for South Australians. Nowhere in that discussion, nowhere in the election campaign, was there ever a mention that a part of that was going to be the sting in the tail, which was presented in this bill, in clause 9—insertion of section 33A—which is the employment test.

The employment test put in place by this government is going to rule out so many volunteers from being able to get access to this supposedly free screening. I think about clubs in my electorate. Whether they be football clubs or surf lifesaving clubs or other community organisations that do voluntary work, there are not many people who do not do some level of work. They might be predominantly retired but they might have a very part-time job or a small business where they do some work, or they might be people who work full-time or part-time in the community and also volunteer in those clubs. Based on the election promises presented by the Liberal Party before the last election, those people would have been thinking that they would be able to access free volunteer screening.

What we are now presented with is that that is not the case at all. Those people who undertake work, and it is a very low bar in terms of employment—seven days in any 12-month period—will have to pay for a screening check. They will not get a free volunteer screening check at all. Even if you are volunteering a huge amount of time in the community and working a very small amount of time, you are still not able to access this check. I think that is very disappointing. It is something that we in this chamber have been trying to get to the bottom of in our assessment of this bill, and we have done that not only today but also on the last day of sitting prior to this, in examining this legislation and how it was put together.

There are a lot of unanswered questions in terms of how this test is going to be applied, how this test was devised, what the criteria are going to be and what the penalties are going to be in terms of how they are going to be applied. But we do know, because the government has made it clear in their legislation, that there will be an offence. They are creating an offence against volunteers in this legislation, an offence with a maximum penalty of $5,000. For instance, if you are at the Moana Surf Life Saving Club, and you are one of the many volunteers there who works hard patrolling the beach, you also have a job to feed your family, pay your bills—

Mr SZAKACS: Point of order, Mr Speaker: I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Mr PICTON: I welcome so many members of the government here to hear my contribution, where I will talk about the new section 33A(4) that is being inserted by the government into this act.

Members interjecting:

Mr PICTON: I think it is important that your side listen to this, Attorney-General, because you are the ones inserting section 33A(4) into this legislation, which is creating an offence that will be punishable to volunteers. A person who fails to comply with subsection (1)—that is, if you undertake work, you need to pay for your check—will be guilty of an offence. The maximum penalty of that offence will be $5,000. I did not see that in the propaganda put out by the Liberal Party before the election. I did not see that in any of their policy documents in relation to this policy, but that is the sting in the tail that they have introduced into this legislation.

I think that is going to be particularly devastating for many volunteers who expected that they were going to get a free check under this government, but they absolutely are not going to because of this clause. Not only are they not going to get the check but we are particularly concerned that there will be people who will, unfortunately for them, slip up in this process when they thought they were doing the right thing. They thought they were entitled to access a free volunteer screening check. They undertook some work—not very much work but some work—in the community. They did not then think, 'Oh, well, I now have to pay this additional money because I am doing a small level of paid work,' and they are now subject to a maximum penalty of $5,000.

I do not think that is a very good way of rewarding our volunteers for their hard work in the community. In our questioning of this, the government was unable to explain how that discretion is going to be applied in terms of who they will prosecute. The actual work test itself seems to be very fuzzy. We asked a number of questions that could not be answered in terms of how that was going to be applied and how many hours would be required for that, so I think it is going to leave volunteers in a state of doubt, a state of confusion.

Firstly, I do not think that they are actually going to know that this clause is there. I do not think that the government is going to promote this clause to those volunteers, so they are not going to be aware of it in the first place. Because they are not aware of it, they will not be of the understanding that, when they undertake a small amount of work, they have to then go back to the government and repay the fee, otherwise they could be subject to this penalty. I think that it was perfectly reasonable and appropriate for Her Majesty's Opposition to examine that in this house and in this committee stage of this debate.

Unfortunately, it was not the approach of the government that that was appropriate. We had the minister responsible for this in the other place criticise members of the opposition for daring to question her bill, daring to question what I believe is a breaking of their election promise to offer free screenings for volunteers and daring to question this new penalty in section 33A(4) that is going to be put into the legislation. The minister not only tweeted her objections about questions in relation to these clauses but also said that this house had to pass this legislation by 5.30pm today.

What we found out in the questioning through the committee stage is that the Attorney-General did not have any reason why that 5.30pm time was put in place. There did not seem to be any rationale. Any failure to meet the 5.30pm deadline was not going to create any problems for the government whatsoever. Hence, I think that basically the minister was lying. The minister was lying when she said that there was a 5.30pm deadline for this house to pass this legislation. I actually think that it infringes upon the privileges of this house to have a minister from the other place instruct us on how we need to deliberate our business.

I note the other place went home pretty early today, as it usually does because it has no work to do under this government, but they could have stayed around if they wanted to pass this legislation. If the minister was so insistent that this had to go through their house tonight, then they could very easily have stayed and debated any number of their pieces of legislation that they have had sitting on their books for many months. But they did not do that. They went home. They are at home having a glass of port or whatever members of the Legislative Council do.

Basically, we have found out that this email directive that we received from Michelle Lensink was completely false. I think that is another area which we needed to examine in terms of the debate tonight and I think that it was clearly completely false. I think it would be very difficult, certainly on our side of the parliament, for us to believe anything we hear come out of the lips of Michelle Lensink after that completely ill thought through and made up email that we received in relation to this bill.

Apart from the fact that section 33A is a massive breaking of their election promise, when you look at the detail of this legislation there are so many unanswered questions. There are a number of areas in which we had some issues in terms of the way the government has drafted this. The amendment I moved was in relation to the ministerial powers to add additional things into this legislation, which I believe was under clause 7, where clause 7 says in terms of functions that they were going to add:

to conduct screenings for the purposes of the Disability Inclusion Act 2018 and to perform such other functions as may be assigned to the central assessment unit under that Act.

When you look at the original act, there is already an ability for additional functions to be assigned to the unit under the act. However, for that to happen, there needs to be the agreement of the minister to do that whereas the clause, which has been drafted by the government in clause 7, section 21(1)(da), would not have the minister involved in that process at all. It has it completely open to the department to decide what additional functions would be assigned to the unit under the Disability Inclusion Act 2018. So that is something we disagreed with. We moved an amendment in relation to that matter because we believe that is an important principle.

Unfortunately, the government did not believe that and, of course, they had the numbers and carried the day. I think when you look at the detail of this, how this has been drafted so sloppily is an area where this house deserves to have a proper examination of this legislation. I think for people to criticise us for doing that perhaps shows up their house, which they supposedly view as the house of review, but it is lucky to sit for two hours a day. This house has been doing the review function of this legislation that has been sloppily drafted in the other place. I believe that is an area deserving of significant scrutiny.

Clause 8, which inserts the new section 26A, in relation to people who are presumed to pose an unacceptable risk to children, is a significant new section in the act. It is unrelated to the screening payments for volunteers but it is an area that deserved significant scrutiny. I think there was a lot of information that we drew out through questioning the Attorney-General in relation to that clause last sitting week about how that is going to be applied and also about how the government still has a lot of work to do on how that is going to be applied.

I asked the Attorney-General a number of questions in relation to clause 12. Clause 12 relates to how the Commissioner of Police will provide information to the central assessment unit on the charging of certain persons. Perhaps because I was the minister for police for a brief time, I have a feeling that there is a bit of work here that needs to happen from the police's end. We had some very disparate answers from the Attorney in relation to whether the police's system is up to speed for doing this. Firstly, she said that a whole lot of work had been done with the police on this, but then later in the questioning it came out that nothing needed to happen in relation to this.

This is something that we will have to watch continuously, to see whether or not it will involve additional work that needs to take place in regard to the new section 39. As we know, IT systems always carry a significant pressure in terms of updating them in the legislation that we pass in this house. Certainly, with the police it is no different. Sometimes, the police feel frustrated that legislation is passed in this place without significant regard for how much work needs to occur to update their systems and implement measures so that it can be actioned at their end, particularly when we place an onus on police to inform.

That might seem like a very appropriate thing to do, but it is appropriate for the parliament to know that the government executive has done the proper work with the police to make sure that is all going to be in place and to make sure that process is going to work. If the process does not work, it will potentially create a concern in relation to the screening process. If we are not getting those notifications—in this case, in terms of the prescribed offences or presumptive disqualification offences in relation to new section 26A—it will make the whole system not work very well. So I did not feel particularly confident in relation to the answers that we had from the Attorney-General that it had been sorted in this regard. I hope that it is the case. I hope that perhaps the Hon. Michelle Lensink, Minister for Human Services, has more information in that regard than the Attorney was able to provide.

I know from my experience that it is sometimes frustrating that bills are passed here, and it takes a lot of work at the other end for the police to implement their systems to ensure that it happens. In one example, both sides of the house strongly supported increasing a range of drug-driving penalties. Thinking back now, that would have therefore led to a significant amount of work by the police to implement their systems to ensure that it happened. It cannot be done at a click of the fingers. So we welcome this bill and we support this bill.

However, we are concerned, particularly in relation to what is a broken promise. The government are not doing what they said they would do at the election. Ultimately, the government will be judged in a number of regards when it comes to the next election and how they performed against the promises they made. This is one area where what they promised and what they have actually delivered are two very different things. By not delivering that for people, potentially the sting in the tail of creating offences for people who fall foul of that—not through their own deliberate actions, but because they did not understand this very confusing piece of legislation that the government have drafted—will be a problem for them.

If people are prosecuted needlessly under this legislation, we will be highlighting that and holding those members of the government to account for promoting and bringing before the house this offence against volunteers who perhaps did not know that they were doing the wrong thing.

Mr SZAKACS (Cheltenham) (20:13): I rise to make a brief contribution further to those of my colleagues, and I do so as a relatively new member of the house. It has been an interesting exercise and I appreciate sincerely the Attorney's contribution and her answers to questions at the committee stage as the carrier of this bill through this house. However, it leaves me in no better place on a couple of key clauses than when we started the process of going into committee. I want to talk about a number of those key clauses which have yet to provide further clarity to the satisfaction of us on this side of the house and, importantly, further clarity for the volunteers who would potentially fall foul of the implementation of this bill.

There have been a number of questions posed by members of the opposition in respect to the circumstances under which a volunteer would be required to repay their screening fee that had been remitted. Much has been said about the qualification of hours or days worked and I would not seek to provide anything further on that. What leaves me with some confusion still, despite the best endeavours of the Attorney, is under what circumstances a volunteer undertaking work would be required to pay back their remitted fees.

In various answers before the house, we have heard different words used. We have heard the word 'remuneration'; the definition of remuneration of course means something. We have heard 'work'; work means something altogether different. We have heard 'paid work'; paid work is a bit different from work. We have also heard 'paid employment'. All those definitions have particular meaning under various pieces of legislation in this state. Of course, the South Australian Fair Work Act provides certain definitions. The commonwealth Fair Work Act also provides certain definition and guidance in respect to those words. The point I make is that they are all very different.

We could also look to the guidance provided in operational standards and guides issued by ReturnToWorkSA in respect to remuneration and those circumstances that were taken in guides, particularly in respect to the types of remuneration that employers need and should declare for the purposes of remuneration—non-monetary items. So here we have the confusion between the Volunteers Protection Act, which provides some guidance in respect to when voluntary work still is voluntary work because of a genuine honorarium, but then we are taken to the ReturnToWorkSA guidelines which provide similar circumstances where similar cash or non-cash benefits would, for the purposes of an employer declaration, be remuneration.

What I put in this third reading contribution is that if it is confusing for us here, what does it mean for SAPOL, which is going to be forced and asked to implement these laws? What is it going mean for volunteers who, frankly, are not sitting at home tonight listening to the committee contribution, as exciting as it is? I am sure that the viewership has probably spiked a little since I got to my feet, but I think maybe just my mum at home is listening.

The point I make is that for a scheme to operate well it needs to be digestible, it needs to be consumable and, most importantly, if this were to be a piece of law to fulfil the commitments made by the government in respect to their election commitments, then it should be easy to operate. This piece of law will not be easy to operate, certainly not for those volunteers who will be forced to pay back their free volunteer screening.

Another interesting point that was raised through the committee stage, which as far I could see certainly was not dragged out—again, I have not been around for that long, but I would expect there to be in my—

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: You had to learn to read Katrine's handwriting!

Mr SZAKACS: I did. So I settled in. I have passed the first test of the member for Reynell's handwriting. I dare say that there are going to be longer and more fulsome committee stages than the one we just embarked on, but we did, through the prudent questioning of those on this side of the house, establish that there are now, both in the eyes of the government and the eyes of the bill, various classes of emergency service workers. An emergency service worker within the same emergency service organisation, whether it be the MFS, CFS or SES, will be treated differently for the purposes of the transitional provisions and that is the requirement for periodic screening to take place.

This is not about us on this side saying the screening should not take place. It is us on this side saying that, if you are a 000 call centre operator doing the same job, the same work and employed under the Fire and Emergency Services Act, sitting in the chair tonight next to someone employed under the Public Sector Act, which is precisely what is happening, then it is simply ludicrous for the piece of law that this government is seeking to pass through this house to treat those two workers, those two front-line emergency service workers, in different ways.

In further questioning, we also heard that an SES volunteer may or may not, depending upon which of the answers we got, be covered by the transitional provisions. A Volunteer Marine Rescue volunteer, who comes under the SES and reports to the Chief Officer of the State Emergency Service, may not be covered.

Despite the protestations of the minister in the other place about the time frames on the bill to be passed, it is my true belief that the committee stage has been important. Unfortunately, we have more questions now unanswered than we have answered. I commend the bill. I look forward to its implementation, notwithstanding the intervention of the minister from the other place. I hope that the operation for volunteers, who were promised one thing and will be delivered something else, is far less disappointing.

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