HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-06-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Criminal Law Consolidation (Assaults on Prescribed Emergency Workers) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 June 2019.)

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD (Gibson—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (16:04): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Criminal Law Consolidation (Assaults on Prescribed Emergency Workers) Amendment Bill introduced into this place by the honourable Attorney-General on 2 May 2019. The bill is incredibly important to provide assurance to all our front-line emergency service workers and volunteers across the state.

Simply put, the bill seeks to better protect the state's police, emergency services, front-line medical officers and other law enforcement officers and volunteers from assaults. Unfortunately, we currently see that assault is too common an occurrence for front-line police and emergency service workers and volunteers. Not only physical assault, but across the state instances of spitting, blood exposure, urine and faeces being used to injure and cause harm to police and other emergency service workers and volunteers whilst in the line of duty are occurring. It sounds abhorrent, but that is what is happening out there.

Let us be absolutely clear: the assault of any person in our community is totally unacceptable. The assault of any police or emergency service worker or volunteer who is simply doing their job cannot continue. This government has listened to and considered the concerns raised by the Police Association with the Attorney-General in January this year about the instances of police officers subjected to assaults when carrying out their duties.

Since that time, significant work has been undertaken with PASA, SAPOL and other related stakeholders to determine the issues leading to assaults, the charging process, the prosecution processes and the court sentencing processes and, in turn, identifying potential gaps that could be rectified by legislative change. One of the key areas that stands out in the statistics is assaults from bodily fluid and biological material.

As a result, the government bill proposes to introduce a standalone offence for assaults on prescribed persons from bodily fluid and biological material, including blood, saliva, vomit, faeces and urine. Prescribed persons will include not just police but also prison officers, community correction officers, youth training officers, youth justice officers, the Metropolitan Fire Service and members of the SA Ambulance Service, as well as others prescribed by regulations, including nurses, doctors, protective security officers, unsworn officers at police stations, community correction workers, Sheriff's officers and bailiffs.

The bill covers not only our paid emergency service officers but also, vitally, our volunteers from the Country Fire Service, State Emergency Service, St John Ambulance, Surf Life Saving SA, and Royal Flying Doctor Service. This group is often forgotten, yet they play a crucial role as front-line volunteers. This government is sending a clear message to those who are disorderly, disrespectful or violent towards our emergency service workers and volunteers: this behaviour is totally unacceptable and will be treated as a criminal offence.

The maximum penalty for this new offence will be five years' imprisonment, or seven years' imprisonment if harm is caused to the victim. This reflects the penalties currently in place in New South Wales and proposed by PASA within their submission. This government has an acute interest in the safety and wellbeing of all emergency service workers and volunteers. In line with the requests of PASA, the bill also amends the Sentencing Act 2007 so that, when a court is sentencing an offender for an offence, the court must take into account in setting a penalty the need to protect the police and other emergency service workers and volunteers.

The amendment is supported by SAPOL as a positive step in the right direction towards recognising police and emergency service workers and volunteers when sentencing offenders. Further, the bill removes the ability for assaults against police to be charged under the Summary Offences Act. This change will ensure that all assaults against police will be charged and prosecuted under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act with more appropriate and higher penalties.

The Criminal Law Consolidation Act currently recognises assaults on police, prison officers, other law enforcement officers, emergency workers and hospital-based medical practitioners, nurses, midwives and their support staff as an aggravated offence exclusively on the operation of section 5AA of the act. These are the toughest laws for offences against any emergency worker and volunteer this state has ever seen.

But, as we know, the parliament is only one cog in the wheel of justice. The parliament can make the laws as strong and as tough as possible. From here, it is up to the assessment and decision-making of the prosecution services, be they SAPOL or the Director of Public Prosecutions, to present the matters to the court. The sentencing of offenders then rests with the courts.

I assume that everybody in this place agrees that judicial independence is one of the crucial elements of our justice system. Whilst we acknowledge there are a number of competing factors in the court process, one thing that was made clear from the consultation process during the drafting of this bill is that the community expects those who commit serious assaults on our police, emergency service workers and volunteers will go to prison.

At the same time, this needs to be balanced against the broad range of offending which falls under common assault on police. This may range from shoving a police officer to much more violent crimes with or without a weapon. As such, it is integral that courts have an appropriate level of discretion to sentence appropriately, given the circumstances. I remain committed to continuing to work together with the Attorney-General, the Police Association of South Australia and other stakeholders to finalise the bill to ensure that we are protecting our community, our front-line emergency service workers and volunteers.

Unfortunately, this is not a new issue. This is yet another example of those opposite failing to do anything about the issue in their 16 years of government. Whilst one would have hoped to see a bipartisan approach to the bill, yet again those opposite are playing catch-up and trying to play cheap parlour tricks for a quick grab on the nightly news. Assaults on our front-line emergency service workers and volunteers should be taken as seriously by those opposite as they are by the Marshall Liberal government. Assaults on our police, emergency service workers and volunteers are not tolerated by the community. They will not be tolerated by this government.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (16:11): I rise to speak on the Criminal Law Consolidation (Assaults on Prescribed Emergency Workers) Amendment Bill 2019 with considerable pleasure. It was introduced by the Attorney on Thursday 2 May of this year, and this bill shows a government desperately playing catch-up with the opposition, who have been considering and publicly debating these issues for months now, but this bill falls way short of the mark.

The Police Association of South Australia has been calling for tougher penalties and stricter sentencing guidelines to make sure that these criminals are properly punished and more likely to be imprisoned, particularly when an emergency worker is injured as a result of their actions. Indeed, new 12-monthly crime statistics out this week show that assaults against South Australia Police officers have increased by 8 per cent to more than 770 since May last year.

It is worth reading a personal story by Brett Williams from the April edition of the Police Association's journal of one of these attacks:

Sergeant Andrew 'Goldy' Goldsmith took the phone call at work. It was a police prosecutor with news of the outcome of an assault case. Goldsmith had been the victim in the matter. Two brothers had bashed and seriously injured the lone patrol officer in a late-night attack on a Hindley St footpath in 2017.

Repeated punches they threw at his head might have knocked him out but, by good fortune, left only bruising and soreness. Even the force with which, in their rage, they gripped his arms left bruising and pain, too.

But worse than that was a major whiplash-type injury one attacker caused by trying repeatedly to yank Goldsmith off his (the attacker's) accomplice. That aggression resulted in soft-tissue damage, which was to require six months of physiotherapy to heal.

So, now, what Goldsmith expected to hear over the phone was that the court had, among other things, delivered justice for him. He hoped that it would be evident through strong, meaningful sentences for his attackers.

The reality, however, was to leave him not just disappointed but enraged. The presiding magistrate had that day, in March 2018, allowed the offending brothers to walk from court with good behaviour bonds.

And Goldsmith took as another affront the decision of the magistrate to record no conviction against either defendant.

'I was so angry,' he recalls. 'I'd had this belief, this core belief, that the courts were there to back us up, to protect us from this sort of thing.

My world was shattered because I was out there trying to protect the public, trying to do the right thing by everybody else. I thought: 'Who's going to protect us (if not the courts)? Who's going to look after our needs?'

Over the last six months, the Police Association of South Australia and others have been asking the parliament to consider changes to the law which achieve some of the following things:

removing the assault police, hindering police and resisting arrest provisions entirely from the Summary Offences Act;

creating specific offences in the CLCA to deal with assaults against police and prescribed emergency workers, which carry tougher penalties;

amending the Sentencing Act to make assaults against police and emergency workers a designated offence, ensuring that anyone who has received a suspended sentence cannot have their sentence suspended again; and

further amending the Sentencing Act to make deterrence against these types of offences a secondary sentencing purpose.

The Attorney's bill partly satisfies the first concern of the Police Association in that it deletes assault police from the summary law, but it leaves the resisting arrest and hindering police provisions untouched. It is unclear why the Attorney has approached the bill this way. The association, whose members have to interact with the law every day of their working lives, have made it abundantly clear that they believe that the 'resist' and 'hinder' provisions should be included in the criminal law.

The association and we on this side of the house have very serious concerns that police officers are often injured, sometimes quite seriously, in the course of arresting someone, and there is no adequate remedy for this injury when the elements of an assault cannot be established. This bill does also include a change to the Sentencing Act, which makes the deterrence of these particular offences a secondary sentencing purpose, and this on its own is commendable. It is something I have been talking publicly about for months. However, it is not enough.

The other concerns of the Police Association—that is, the need for specific offences in the CLCA to deal with assaults against police and other emergency workers, which carry tougher penalties, and the declaration of assaults against police and emergency services workers as designated offences to ensure anyone who has received a suspended sentence cannot have their sentence suspended again—have been dismissed out of hand by the Attorney.

As a result, this bill is a weak and inadequate response to the very genuine concerns of our police and emergency workers. These are people who go out every day—willingly go into danger, willingly go into situations knowing they may well be dangerous—in order to protect people, to protect property, to protect the community or to administer medical treatment. They deserve our protection, and the bill before us today does not give it.

We know what this bill does not do. I will go through my understanding of what it does. First, as has been outlined, it creates the new offence of spitting or throwing or otherwise applying blood, saliva, semen, faeces or urine on a prescribed emergency worker in the course of their duties. It establishes a maximum penalty for this new offence at four years, or five years if harm is caused to the victim. It then makes consequential amendments to the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act.

I understand this new provision came out of discussions with SAPOL. The inclusion of a standalone offence is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is my understanding that these types of behaviours already constitute an assault under the existing provisions of this CLCA—there will obviously be questions about that in the committee stage—and that harm resulting from these behaviours already does constitute harm. More importantly, however, it does not address the sentencing for these types of assaults.

Next, the bill includes employees in youth training centres in the existing aggravated offence provisions. Given the narrow parameters of the bill, that is fine. I am sure we can leave that untouched, unless it becomes redundant by some of my amendments. As I said before, the bill also amends section 4 of the Sentencing Act so that, when a court is sentencing an offender, it must be a secondary sentencing principle and all that entails. I am happy to support that. The bill, as I have stated before, also repeals the assault police offence of section 6 of the Summary Offences Act, but it leaves hinder and resist arrest untouched.

The crux of this bill's failure, its inherent weakness, is that, rather than create standalone specific offences for assaults on cops and prescribed workers, it merely increases the maximum penalties for certain unlawful threat and assault offences in which the victim is a prescribed worker by a mere one year—one year, with no mention of any sentencing guidelines to ensure that repeat offenders are locked up beyond the amendment of section 4.

This is self-evidently a weak bill. It is inadequate. It was roundly condemned on the day it was introduced by some of the very people it purports to protect. Mark Carroll, the President of the Police Association of South Australia, was unequivocal in his condemnation of the bill. He said:

This new bill is weak, and nowhere near fit for purpose. Maximum penalties rising by only a year will hardly change the way offenders are punished by the courts, nor will it act as a sufficient deterrent. It’s also inferior to the legislation in NSW, QLD, Victoria and WA. Those states have acted appropriately to protect emergency services workers.

He goes on to say:

The government is aware of what we want—a specific, dedicated offence written into the law which deals with assaults on police and other emergency services workers.

Police, ambos and emergency workers need a clear and unequivocal statement from the parliament and from the government that criminals who injure police officers, ambulance workers and other front-line emergency workers when they are trying to do their job of protecting, serving, helping and treating members of the public should feel the full force of the law. Sentencing should be appropriate to punish those offenders and deter others who think they will just get away with a slap on the wrist. The bill in its current form simply does not do that.

I want to flag amendments that I will move in this place, and we reserve our right to seek further amendments in the other place if that becomes necessary. I do not intend to amend, in this house at least, the rather simple amendments to section 5AA, which essentially do two things: they slightly change the definition of workers captured by the act and they increase the penalties for those offences slightly.

As I said, I will not attempt to interfere with those provisions here, though I note that my essential and first substantial amendment will make most of those provisions redundant. I will leave them, anticipating that the government will use its numbers to vote against my substantial amendments, and I will then be left opposing measures that make the laws marginally tougher on offenders. So, within the narrow parameters of the bill before us, I will support those.

I will attempt to amend clause 7 so that it creates specific offences around the assault and injury of police, ambulance officers and emergency workers. The offences themselves, in this amended section, are as follows:

causing harm to a prescribed emergency worker acting in the course of their official duties intending to cause harm, with a maximum penalty of 15 years;

causing harm to a prescribed emergency worker acting in the course of their official duties through a reckless act, with a maximum penalty of 10 years;

assaulting a prescribed emergency worker acting in the course of their official duties, with a maximum penalty of five years; and

hindering or resisting a police officer in the course of their official duties, with a maximum penalty of two years; however, if harm is caused to that police officer it carries a maximum penalty of 10 years, which brings it into line with the 'recklessly causing harm' provision previously mentioned.

It should also be noted at this point, and I think the Attorney made this point, too, that the provisions in the CLCA around serious harm, where the maximum penalty is 25 years, are deemed sufficient and will remain unchanged by this side of the house. I will attempt, as part of these amendments, to incorporate a clarification that throwing or using human biological material to assault and/or injure a prescribed emergency worker constitutes assault and/or harm within the meanings of the CLCA. In my amendment to clause 7, there is less prescription about who is to be included in the definition of a 'prescribed emergency worker'. I will get to that in the committee stage.

I will also introduce an amendment that will attempt to make the new offences listed above designated offences for the purposes of sentencing when they result in harm or injury. This means that a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court cannot be suspended if, during the five-year period immediately preceding the date on which the relevant offence was committed, a court has suspended a sentence of imprisonment or period of detention imposed on the defendant for a designated offence. In short, this ensures that anyone who has received a suspended sentence cannot have a custodial sentence suspended again within that five-year period.

As with other designated offences under section 96 of the Sentencing Act, the court retains the discretion not to impose custodial sentences where it is not deemed appropriate. In this sense, it is not, as some commentators have tried to paint it, a mandatory minimum sentencing regime. It is not that: it simply means that anyone who has received a suspended sentence cannot have a suspended sentence again, assuming that the court has seen that second offending as sufficiently serious to warrant a custodial sentence.

This works in concert with the provision that makes the deterrence of assaults against emergency workers a secondary sentencing principle, a provision that I will amend slightly but not substantially to make it very clear that the intention is to punish this type of conduct, particularly when it involves repeat offenders, with the harshness that it deserves. I want to make it clear again that this does not constitute mandatory minimum sentencing.

Judicial discretion is maintained, as the minister said. It is a cornerstone of our judicial system, and it will be maintained as it should be. But it is parliament's job to reflect the will of the people and to give expression to community expectations. Let's be clear about this: it is the expectation of the community that criminals who assault and injure police, ambos and emergency workers, particularly repeat offenders, should be treated very seriously by our courts.

Finally, my amendments will seek to entirely remove section 6 from the Summary Offences Act—that is, the provisions for assaulting police, hindering police and resisting arrest—and place it entirely in the criminal code. The removal of the assault provisions in section 6, outlined by the Attorney in her second reading explanation, is self-explanatory; it makes the offence more serious and places higher penalties on offenders.

But concerns remain amongst police that police officers are often injured, sometimes quite seriously, in the course of arresting someone, and that there is no adequate remedy when the elements of an assault cannot be established. This amendment will address that by placing the entire section in the criminal code, and substantially increasing the penalty for instances when police are harmed during the commission of an offence.

Some of the issues raised in this debate have been around for a long time, but they were revived by the Police Association in October last year, and this is when Labor engaged with the Police Association and others and we on this side of the house got to work drafting legislation. By contrast, the Minister for Police until today has been completely silent on the matter despite the fact that it is largely the workforce he is responsible for which will be affected by these changes. Indeed, it is members of his workforce who have been asking for these changes.

The Hon. C.L. Wingard interjecting:

Mr ODENWALDER: It's untrue that members of your workforce have been asking for these changes? The Minister for Health has been silent when in fact ambulance officers are also a key target of this legislation. In the course of my consultation, the body representing ambulance officers and paramedics made it perfectly clear to me that legislative change in this area was long overdue.

The Attorney-General herself was almost entirely silent up until very recently. She has rushed to play catch-up on this issue after months of inaction and disinterest and has introduced the bill which is weak and not fit for purpose. We can and we should do better than this to protect the people who protect us, and I look forward to the committee stage of the bill.

Ms LUETHEN (King) (16:26): The government has introduced important legislation to deal with requests from the Commissioner of Police and the Police Association of South Australia regarding police assaults, and specifically assaults on police and other emergency service workers from bodily fluids. The bill is incredibly important in providing assurance to our front-line emergency workers by better protecting the state's police, emergency service workers, front-line medical officers and other law enforcement officers from assaults.

The major purpose of this bill is to create a new offence in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 where a person spits or throws or otherwise applies blood, saliva, semen, faeces, urine or vomit on a prescribed emergency worker in the course of their duties. Assaults on police officers have been increasing. Police officers were attacked 771 times, and on average there were 15 assaults a week in the last 12 months up to 30 April this year.

We really must protect our police. All assaults are unacceptable, and such assaults, as with spitting and attacking police officers with bodily fluids, are all too common for our front-line police and emergency service workers, with spit, blood, urine and faeces being used to harm police and other officers while in their line of duty. I thank the Commissioner of Police for raising this unattended concern with the Attorney-General for action, and welcome the standalone offence being created in this bill.

Whilst our courts do see assaults using bodily fluids and appropriately sentence in line with the seriousness of these actions, it has been vital to create an offence that stands apart from assaults and assaults causing harm in the criminal law. This government is sending a clear message to those who are disorderly, disrespectful and violent towards our police, ambulance workers, doctors, nurses, firefighters and front-line officers that this behaviour is unacceptable and should be treated as such in the criminal law.

Labor's amendments do not immediately cover all front-line emergency service workers, which is the strength of our government's legislation. Our government’s bill does the following. It creates a standalone offence in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act for causing harm using human biological material against a prescribed person. ‘Biological material' means blood, saliva, semen, vomit, faeces or urine. 'Prescribed person' means police officer, prison officer, emergency service worker, law enforcement officer, volunteers in the SES, CFS and St John, and others prescribed by regulations, likely to include nurses, doctors, unsworn officers at police stations, Community Corrections workers, Sheriff’s officers, bailiffs, etc., upon consultation.

Taking into account the role of police and emergency service workers when sentencing, the bill will require a sentencing judge to consider the need to protect police as a secondary sentencing consideration beyond community safety generally. SAPOL agreed that this would be a positive step in recognising police and allied workers when sentencing for the above charges. This was the result of a request by PASA.

There is a repeal of lower level assault charges. It removes the ability for assaults against police to be charged under the Summary Offences Act and therefore ensures that all assaults against police occur in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which has higher penalties. Following extensive consultation, the Attorney has filed further amendments in the House of Assembly. These amendments do the following to increase in maximum penalties for assault against police officers.

In submissions to the Attorney, PASA requested an increase in penalties across the board to offences relating to police. Following consultation, the government has increased the penalties for the assault of police to seven years, if harm is caused to police, and five years to police otherwise. A broad range of offending falls under 'common assault on police'. This could range from shoving a police officer to a much more violent crime. As such, it is integral that the courts have an appropriate level of discretion to sentence appropriately, given the circumstances. Notably, this is not a new issue, and Labor failed to do anything about this during their 16 years in government.

Ensuring Community Corrections officers are included: amendments Nos 1 and 4 bring Community Corrections officers and Community Youth Justice officers into the biological materials offence and aggravated offences generally. This ensures that these workers have the same protection from assaults as prison officers and youth training centre officers. Expansion of the list of biological material: amendment No. 3 adds vomit to the list of biological materials. The AMA considers that this should be included in the list and has anecdotal experience of this being used to harm front-line doctors and nurses.

Greater coverage of doctors and nurses in regional areas and attending roadside incidents: amendments Nos 2, 5, 6 and 7 extend the biological materials offence to workers in a hospital emergency department, a person engaged in retrieval medicine and rural doctors in emergency scenarios. These amendments were raised by both the AMA and the nursing federation due to many attending front-line incidents outside emergency department boundaries. For doctors and nurses in regional areas, this is particularly important.

Biological assault offence for everyday people: amendment No. 8 creates a new standalone offence for throwing biological material at an ordinary individual with a maximum penalty of two years or, if harm is caused, three years.

I commend the Attorney-General for acting swiftly when, in January 2019, she was contacted by the Police Association of South Australia regarding changes they would like to see relating to assaults on police. Since that time, work was undertaken with PASA and SAPOL to determine the issues around police assaults, the court sentencing process and gaps that could be rectified by legislative change. Excellent consultation has taken place. The Attorney-General has circulated this bill to the Police Association of South Australia, SAPOL, the United Fire Fighters Union of South Australia, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, the PSA and the Australian Medical Association.

Thank you to everyone who has taken time to support and speak on this bill, thereby supporting our South Australian front-line emergency workers by better protecting the state's police, emergency service workers, front-line medical officers and other law enforcement officers from assaults. I know that these changes will be supported by my electorate, and it is exciting that together, as a community, through speaking up and acting we will create a safer South Australian community and greater consequences for hurting the people who protect and serve us.

Last week, I was fortunate to visit the Golden Grove MFS, the Salisbury MFS, the Salisbury SES, the Salisbury CFS, the Golden Grove Police Station and the Elizabeth Police Station with the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, who cares deeply about having feedback directly from these workers and volunteers. These volunteers, staff and officers across our emergency and policing do a terrific job keeping our community safe and certainly deserve our government's full support to be kept safe, too, just as every citizen of South Australia deserves to be safe at home, school, work and in our community.

The police officers told me that they are often spat on, which is despicable and not okay. They must be respected, or there must be strong consequences. People who assault our emergency service workers must feel the full force of the law. I commend this bill.

Mr BROWN (Playford) (16:35): I rise to speak on the Criminal Law Consolidation (Assaults on Prescribed Emergency Workers) Amendment Bill. The government bill's primary purpose is to create new offences for people who intentionally cause human biological material to come into contact with another person or threaten to do so. The bill also amends aggravated offences within the act to include offending made against CFS workers and volunteers, as well as those who supervise youths in a training centre. Existing aggravated offences are increased, although only by a single year.

Providing strong robust legislation that protects police and emergency workers should be a high priority of any state government. The Police Association report that more than 700 officers are assaulted each year, so the government needs to legislate to provide a strong level of deterrence. Labor has a proud history when it comes to reforming the criminal law, providing for offences that either protect the public or the police and emergency services.

In fact, in 2015 the then Labor government passed the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing for Diseases) Amendment Act. This law delivered on an election commitment to require offenders who bite or spit at police officers to undertake blood tests for infectious diseases. It became apparent that these laws were necessary when several cases arose of offenders spitting at or biting SAPOL officers, resulting in communicable diseases being transmitted.

This includes the story of Senior Constable Alison Coad, who was attempting to arrest an offender in Whitmore Square a number of years ago. The woman spat in the constable's face, causing her to contract a communicable disease that continues to have a detrimental effect upon her life. Following instances like this, both the Police Association and the public more broadly called for the then Labor government to act, and it did just that.

Fast-forward to 2019 and the Police Association have mounted a worthy campaign for tougher laws for offenders who assault police and emergency service workers in the line of duty. What is the difference? This time we have a Liberal government and a Liberal Attorney-General who has introduced legislation that has been described as woefully inadequate.

The bill simply does not address what has been asked of the government, namely, that specific offences be created to deal with assaults against police and emergency service workers and that criminals who reoffend, after previously receiving a suspended sentence, will be sent to prison. It is clear that the government simply are not consulting adequately and listening to what the community is asking for.

On this side of the house, we have introduced amendments to create specific offences, with tougher penalties for assaults against emergency workers. This includes tough maximum penalties, including 15 years' imprisonment for those who intentionally cause harm to an emergency worker, 10 years' imprisonment for those who recklessly cause harm and five years' imprisonment for those who assault an emergency worker. Furthermore, the amendments ensure that anyone who has received a suspended sentence will serve gaol time if they assault a police officer or emergency worker again.

These are the amendments that the Police Association are asking for. They are the experts in this field. They know what police officers in South Australia want and need so that they can carry out their duties knowing that the law protects them and deters offenders. They have described Labor's amendments as the changes that will 'deliver for all stakeholders'. The government should take on board our amendments and consider whether they are truly committed to protecting our police and emergency service workers.

As it stands, the government bill that has been introduced is a weak response to a growing and concerning problem. I endorse Labor's amendments and ask all members of the house to consider them favourably.

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (16:38): I also take the opportunity today to speak on the Criminal Law Consolidation (Assaults on Prescribed Emergency Workers) Amendment Bill. As others have mentioned in the house, assaults on police, ambulance workers, doctors, nurses and other front-line workers should certainly be treated with the highest regard, and as a community we should not tolerate the daily abuse, assault and harm caused to these workers. This bill, which has been introduced by the Attorney, seeks to introduce a new offence into the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 to protect our state's emergency service workers and punish those who spit, throw or apply blood, saliva, semen, faeces or urine on those workers in the course of their duties.

Front-line emergency workers such as police officers, members of the South Australian Ambulance Service, Correctional Services workers, members of the South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service and Country Fire Service, nurses and doctors working in emergency departments in our hospitals are essential in keeping South Australians safe and caring for those who may be injured. However, they are unable to do so if they are being assaulted while performing these crucial duties. Disturbingly, these incidents are becoming far too commonplace and, as a state, we have an obligation to ensure that those emergency workers are able to undertake their essential work safely.

The Attorney-General, in consultation with the Police Association of South Australia, South Australia Police, the United Firefighters Union of South Australia, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, the Public Service Association and the Australian Medical Association, has put together a bill to toughen up the laws around assaults against emergency service workers. Under the bill, stronger penalties will be in place for offenders who cause harm to police and also other emergency service workers.

One of the amendments that is achieved by this bill is to further add to offences that constitute an aggravated offence in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. The act as it stands provides that some offences have a basic form and also an aggravated form, and the maximum penalty becomes significantly greater for an aggravated form than it does for a basic form of the offence.

Section 5AA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act sets out the circumstances that would lead to an offence being classified as aggravated. At present, an aggravated offence has one of the circumstances to be considered as an aggravated offence outlined in section 5AA(1)(c):

(c) the offender committed the offence against a police officer, prison officer or other law enforcement officer—

Clause 7 of the bill inserts after '(b) a prison officer; or' the following:

(c) an employee in a training centre (within the meaning of the Youth Justice Administration Act 2016);

This comes about because, while they are not technically prison officers, they are also front-line workers nonetheless, so this change will help to protect them. Further, a new paragraph is added to section 5AA(1) after paragraph (k), which provides:

(ka) in the case of an offence against the person—the victim was, at the time of the offence, engaged in a prescribed occupation or employment (whether on a paid or volunteer basis) and the offender committed the offence knowing the victim to be acting in the course of the victim's official duties;

That is also outlined as an aggravated offence. Importantly, this enables the regulations to extend to people who are either in paid employment or volunteers. The Attorney-General gave as an example the protection under law this will provide to two different people who work for the CFS: a paid employee and a volunteer. This is certainly an important initiative to protect our emergency service workers and is welcomed by those organisations that have volunteers who are serving in an emergency person's role.

The bill also increases the maximum penalties under various sections for offences of making unlawful threats to cause harm under section 19, offences of assault under section 20, offences of recklessly causing harm under section 24, and offences relating to acts likely to cause harm under section 29 of the act. That adds on a maximum penalty for an aggravated offence, in the circumstances that I have previously referred to outlined in section 5AA(1)(c), which relate to aggravated offences against police officers and law enforcement officers, but also offences under section 5AA(1)(ka), offences against the victim when they are engaged in a prescribed occupation, whether they are paid or a volunteer.

That extends the maximum penalty in those cases under section 19 to eight years. Section 20, in dealing with assault, looks at various provisions as well. In addition, section 24, recklessly causing harm, and section 29, reckless acts, increase the penalties of imprisonment up to eight years.

One of the substantive amendments to this bill is the addition of section 20AA, which creates a standalone offence in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act for causing harm using human biological material against a prescribed emergency worker, whether acting in a paid or voluntary capacity. In this bill, section 20AA(5) defines human biological material as blood, saliva, semen, faeces or urine. It is also worth noting that the Attorney has foreshadowed some amendments, which will include vomit also being defined as human biological material.

This section also describes a 'prescribed emergency worker' as meaning a police officer, prison officer, an employee in a training centre, a member of the SA Ambulance Service, a member of the South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service, the South Australian Country Fire Service or South Australian State Emergency Service, a law enforcement officer or any other person engaged in an occupation or employment prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of section 5AA(1)(ka)—which is an addition to this bill—and also any other person prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

I should also note that the Attorney-General has foreshadowed that community correction officers will also be included in this going forward as part of further amendments. It is important to note that a prescribed emergency worker specifies:

whether acting in a paid or voluntary capacity, but does not include a person…declared by the regulations to be excluded from the ambit of this definition.

It really outlines who these prescribed persons are and, as prescribed in the regulations, it is likely to include nurses, doctors, unsworn officers at police stations, Community Corrections officers, Sheriff's officers and bailiffs.

Subsection (4) of section 20AA provides that a person is committing an offence if they cause human biological material to come into contact with a victim, either by applying it directly to the victim via means such as spitting or throwing, or deliberately applying biological material. The other option is that they deliberately apply the biological material to themselves, knowing that the victim could come into contact with them or is likely to. So it covers the circumstance of someone applying blood to themselves and then trying to assault the victim by that means.

In the bill before us, those found guilty of committing these new criminal offences will face a maximum penalty of five years under this new aggravated assault offence and, in any other case, of up to four years' imprisonment. It is worth noting again that the Attorney has foreshadowed amendments that would escalate this so that harm caused to the prescribed emergency worker would have a maximum penalty of up to seven years and, in other cases, a penalty of five years' imprisonment. So the government is certainly taking this offence very seriously.

The offences outlined in the bill will certainly help better protect police and other emergency service workers, whilst also complementing existing laws that capture offences against police and broader assault laws, including shooting at police for which there is a maximum penalty of 10 years in gaol at the present time. The offence of shooting at police and causing serious harm to an officer incurs a maximum penalty of up to 25 years in gaol. The act of endangering the life of another incurs a maximum penalty of 18 years' imprisonment when it is an aggravated offence against a police officer, and the act of endangering the life of another has a maximum penalty of 18 years' imprisonment.

The Marshall Liberal government certainly will always stand up for those who want to keep our state safe. This is a crucial piece of legislation not just across the state but also certainly within my electorate of Morphett. In Morphett, we are fortunate to not only have the Glenelg Police Station on Sussex Street that runs into Jetty Road, Glenelg, which is a prime tourist spot, but there is also the Glengowrie Ambulance Station on Morphett Road, which is opposite the Morphettville Racecourse, and also the Camden Park Fire Station, which is also on Morphett Road but on the northern side of Anzac Highway.

I would like to take a bit of time to talk a little bit more about the Glengowrie Ambulance Station. It is a $6.4 million ambulance station and was opened very recently, in August 2018. It is certainly a major success for the electorate of Morphett and really the western suburbs as a whole. The ambulance station is in operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week and it is perfectly positioned to enhance SA Ambulance Service's emergency response capability in the western metropolitan region.

Being on Morphett Road, the position of the station enables easy access to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital and the Flinders Medical Centre. It is certainly essential to the growing population of the western suburbs and will lead to improved response times in the western suburbs. The station itself caters for seven ambulances and two light fleet vehicles that are based there at the facility. It is also is built in such a way that it provides for the expansion to meet the future needs of the Morphett community as it grows and also the western metropolitan community.

At the time I opened the Glengowrie Ambulance Station, I spoke of looking forward to the local community benefiting from having hardworking paramedics and ambulance officers based there. Unfortunately, while these officers and other paramedics are out in our community trying to save lives, they are being attacked, preventing them from tending to those in desperate need of emergency care. When on the job, sometimes ambulance officers face being spat on, aggressive behaviour, sometimes with a weapon, threats of violence and also physical assault, which includes kicking, biting and punching.

I mention that because, really, a paramedic's main focus is to care for the patients they are sent to. They are there to help, but under this crisis situation it becomes easy for other family, friends or even bystanders to feel they need to vent their frustrations against the ambulance crew. Unfortunately, this can manifest itself into the very aggressive and violent forms of unacceptable behaviour that I have just described.

To counter this and to try to educate the public, an education campaign designed to protect ambulance officers quite rightly states, 'I can't fight for your mate's life while I'm fighting for mine.' Really, I think if we can hit that home along with the bill itself, it reinforces that this government certainly wants to stand by those emergency service workers and protect them while they are trying to help keep our society safe. It is clearly unacceptable that this sort of violence occurs against emergency workers. It should not be seen as an occupational hazard and it is only fair therefore that those same paramedics and ambulance officers should be supported and protected because they are working hard for the community to save lives.

The bill before us seeks to provide a firm statement that this government and the broader South Australian community does not accept aggressive behaviour or threats towards our emergency workers by putting in place tough laws to provide protection for these emergency service workers. Similarly, attacks on firefighters are equally unacceptable. In Morphett, as I mentioned, we also have the Camden Park Fire Station, which is also staffed 24 hours a day by 20 full-time firefighters safeguarding the lives and property of those in our community.

Last year, I delivered on an election commitment to have a strong police presence in Morphett, which included securing extended operating hours at the Glenelg Police Station during the peak summer months. This is certainly one aspect of a strong police presence. But in addition to this, it is also important to have mobile and foot patrols that are highly visible to ensure safety in our community. Police officers, especially on foot, however, are exposed to these forms of attacks I have previously described, including the human biological material. The bill will act as a strong deterrent to those wishing to cause harm to those police officers and will bring harsher penalties upon those who do.

It is not only emergency service workers who should be protected from offences involving blood, saliva, vomit and other human biological materials. Understandably, threats or actual harm to members of the community from human biological materials is a cause for considerable alarm to many in our community. I should mention that the Attorney-General has foreshadowed adding a further section to section 20 which will create a new standalone offence which will also be legislated for throwing human biological material at an ordinary individual with maximum penalties of two years' imprisonment or, if harm is caused, three years' imprisonment. This would be an important protection for all people in the South Australian community and welcomed by many, I am certain.

Beyond the additions to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, the bill also makes changes to the Sentencing Act 2017 by adding to the secondary sentencing purposes in section 4(1) so that when a court is sentencing an offender for an offence, the court must take into account in setting that penalty the need to protect the police and other emergency service workers. Currently, the courts must consider the safety of the community as paramount to other sentencing considerations. This is done in section 3 of the Sentencing Act and this aspect will not change.

In terms of other changes to acts, currently assaults against police can be charged under section 6 of the Summary Offences Act, and this comes with a maximum penalty for the offence of assault as either a $10,000 fine or imprisonment for two years. Other more serious assaults against police officers can be charged under section 20 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

This amendment bill of the Attorney repeals section 6(1) of the Summary Offences Act which then removes the ability for assaults against police to be charged under the Summary Offences Act and, therefore, ensures that all assaults against police in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act have higher penalties. This removal from the Summary Offences Act will act as a strong deterrent because no longer could a fine potentially be a possible outcome for an assault against police. The outcomes will be gaol time with maximum sentences as prescribed in this bill.

The bill is another example of the Marshall Liberal government's commitment to our state's emergency service workers. Our government will always work to protect South Australia's emergency service workers from various forms of assaults. We have clearly outlined the harsh penalties for breaking this law. It sends a clear message to those who are disrespectful and violent towards our police, ambulance workers, doctors, nurses, firefighters and other front-line officers that this behaviour is unacceptable and should be treated as such in the criminal law.

I also take this opportunity to thank our police officers, firefighters, ambulance officers, paramedics, nurses and doctors for their tireless efforts to keep our community safe and in good health. I commend this bill to the house.

Dr HARVEY (Newland) (16:57): I am very pleased today to rise in support of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Assaults on Prescribed Emergency Workers) Amendment Bill 2019. This bill is yet another example of a sensible bill from the Marshall Liberal government. It acts on requests from the Commissioner of Police and the Police Association of South Australia and reflects the respect that most South Australians have for our emergency services workers.

This bill inserts into the Criminal Law Consolidation Act a new standalone offence for causing harm using human biological material against police officers, prison officers, emergency services workers, law enforcement officers, SES, CFS, St John volunteers and other persons who are prescribed by regulation.

The proposed maximum penalty for this offence is seven years' imprisonment where harm is caused and five years' imprisonment in circumstances where no harm is caused. These sorts of shameful acts are completely unacceptable and have no place in our community. Emergency workers perform a vital public service, ensuring that the rest of us are safe on the streets, safe from natural disasters and receive world-class treatment when we are hurt.

Needless to say, the vast majority of South Australians have a commendable level of respect for these workers and appreciate their efforts to keep us safe. Unfortunately, though, there are some in our community who not only fail to show respect for our emergency workers but actively impede their work and infringe on their right to safety. These people must have a clear message sent to them that their behaviour is not welcome in our community.

The bill highlights how seriously this government considers offences against emergency workers. In addition to the creation of the new standalone offence for causing harm to emergency workers using bodily fluids, the bill amends the aggravated offences provisions of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act to include as an aggravated offence a circumstance where a person commits an offence against an emergency worker knowing that the victim is acting in the course of their official duties or as retribution for something the victim may have done whilst acting in their official duties.

Importantly, this bill also amends the Sentencing Act so that the need to protect emergency workers is taken into account when an offender is being sentenced and removes from the Summary Offences Act the offence of assaulting a police officer. This will ensure that, rather than being charged under the Summary Offences Act, those who assault police officers will be charged under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, leaving them open to more severe penalties.

Though I have been fortunate to have had virtually no contact with police undertaking their official duties, the police officers I do know through the local Neighbourhood Watch groups, particularly those in my local community, are thoroughly decent people whose aim in their careers is to help to make sure that our communities are as safe as possible. Even the fact that I am meeting them through Neighbourhood Watch groups demonstrates how much they are willing to go above and beyond their official duties to work with and to engage with the community.

Certainly, the stories you hear from some of those officers about the sorts of things they deal with on a daily basis are quite incredible for someone like me to consider. I have had obviously very different jobs, where I was not dealing with the sorts of situations they deal with on a daily basis. You really have to have a great deal of respect for the important job they do and the very real impact that the situations they find themselves in have on them and their family.

The decency of police officers is certainly very true for all other front-line workers I have encountered, and ambulances officers are an example. I know a number of people who work as paramedics, who are frequently dealing with very difficult people—in fact, it seems that quite a large number of the people they deal with are difficult—and so we certainly need to do everything we can to protect them.

I would also like to make particular mention of the fact that this bill includes provisions that extend to volunteers in the Country Fire Service and the State Emergency Service. The thought that a person would seek to commit an offence against some of the most selfless people in our community is really quite sickening. We all know how hard our CFS and SES volunteers work. The fact that they are often obviously employed in another area and commit a great deal of their free time to keeping the rest of us safe and to protecting us during incidents of natural disasters is why the majority of us hold these volunteers in high regard.

The CFS and SES are very important to my own electorate. The Tea Tree Gully SES is located in St Agnes within Newland. It is very, very good brigade. As an aside, I think it is worth mentioning that just recently they won the 2019 South Australian State Rescue Challenge. I believe it was for the 13th year in a row, which is quite incredible. They will then be competing later on this year in the national championships. It really goes to show that we are very fortunate in our part of our Adelaide to have such a professional and highly committed team.

I understand that a lot of their training for the Rescue Challenge is above and beyond their ordinary training. Their unit coordinator, Phil Tann, did not allow them to use their normal training nights to train for the competition. Moreover, they obviously could not allow it to affect any of their responses to incidents. So these people were contributing above and beyond and really demonstrating not only Phil's leadership but the leadership that exists within his team and the commitment of his team has to excellence. As a local member, I and the rest of our community in the north-east are very proud of the work these volunteers do.

The CFS is very important to my electorate, where there are a number of CFS brigades: Tea Tree Gully, Hermitage, Paracombe, Kersbrook, Forreston and Cudlee Creek, which is just over the border but is partly in Newland. I was very fortunate to visit the Hermitage and Paracombe brigades the other week with the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. They are a great group of people who are highly committed to what they do.

It is also worth mentioning that a lot of those brigades, as well as many others, were heavily involved with some natural disasters within Newland in recent years. The Sampson Flat bushfire was a particularly notable event, and it still has a very real impact on many of the volunteers in the area. In fact, in the Hermitage brigade, a number of volunteers and local community members are involved in putting together a book about the history of the fire in that area. They are fundraising in support of producing the book, which will support the brigade as well.

These are incredible people within our community who are doing a really important job looking after the rest of us so that, when there is a disaster, we can run away from it while these guys run towards it and keep us and our properties as safe as they possibly can be. There is never really a bad time to reiterate our appreciation for these volunteers, and this bill shows that this government will not tolerate disrespectful behaviour towards them.

Like all South Australians, emergency workers deserve to feel safe and respected at work. The work that all emergency workers perform is a vital public service and crucial to the maintenance of our cohesive society. This bill also creates a new standalone offence for throwing biological material at an ordinary individual, which would attract a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment or three years if harm is caused to the victim.

Whilst all forms of assault are disgraceful, there is something particularly repugnant about the idea that a person would use their own bodily fluids to cause harm to another human being. This is a sensible amendment. The disparity in the maximum penalties for the new standalone offences for throwing biological material at ordinary people and emergency services workers respectively recognises that particular protection should be afforded to those who work to keep the rest of us safe. In fact, they are often the people on the wrong end of that kind of behaviour.

As a father of young children, I know that one of the most important lessons we can teach our kids is to respect all those around them. It is truly not a difficult concept to understand and practise. If my children know that they should not spit on another person, for example, then I think it is quite reasonable that we expect that adults should not either. If there are people in our community who think that they can act with such blatant disrespect for others, the law must send a strong signal that our community will not tolerate that behaviour. This bill sends that message.

I would like to offer my congratulations to the Deputy Premier on her work to bring this bill to the house and implement this reform after a relatively short time in office. Whereas those opposite spent 16 years deafened by their own spin, the Marshall Liberal government has listened to the concerns and requests of emergency workers and is making real changes so that they can carry out their work without being subject to attacks.

The Marshall Liberal government listens to the concerns of the community and then acts on those concerns. It is a government that prioritises making real changes to improve the lives of South Australians, rather than focusing on being in the headlines and winning the media cycle. We will continue to implement sensible reforms that bring the law into line with community expectations. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:08): I rise to support the Criminal Law Consolidation (Assaults on Prescribed Emergency Workers) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge all our emergency workers and the fantastic work they do, whether they are paid or volunteers. Many thousands of these workers, no matter whether they are paid or volunteers, essentially put their lives on the line.

I have heard and seen on either TV reports or radio the horrifying accounts of people, especially police officers, being spat at and then told they have probably caught HIV or some other nasty disease when they were just going about their job to protect their communities, to help their communities. It is abhorrent that we even need to get to the stage of enacting legislation like this, but, sadly, it appears to be the way of the world.

What we are doing with this legislation is dealing with requests from the police commissioner and the Police Association of South Australia regarding these police assaults, and specifically assaults on police and other emergency service workers, with bodily fluids. Where the bill addresses these issues, there is a new offence for bodily fluid assaults, and it creates a standalone offence in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act for causing harm using human biological material against a prescribed person.

'Biological material' means blood, saliva, semen, faeces or urine. A 'prescribed person' means a police officer, prison officer, emergency service worker, law enforcement officer, volunteers in the SES, CFS and St John and others prescribed by regulations, which is most likely to include nurses, doctors, unsworn officers at police stations, Community Corrections workers, Sheriff's officers, bailiffs and others upon consultation.

This legislation will take into account the role of police and emergency service people when sentencing criminals. The bill will require a sentencing judge to consider the need to protect police as a secondary sentencing consideration beyond community safety generally. South Australia Police have agreed that this would be a positive step in recognising police and allied workers when sentencing for the above charges, and this was a specific request of the Police Association of South Australia.

The lower level assault charges will be repealed, and so this removes the ability for assaults against police to be charged under the Summary Offences Act, and therefore ensures that all assaults against police occur in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which has higher penalties. The Attorney has put forward some amendments, and they have been filed—this is after extensive consultation with affected people and bodies—which increase the maximum penalties for assaults against police officers.

Certainly, in submissions to the Attorney-General, the Police Association of South Australia requested an increase in penalties across the board for offences relating to police. Following consultation, this government has increased the penalties for assault on police to seven years if harm is caused and five years for police otherwise. This reflects the New South Wales legislation, as provided by the Police Association of South Australia.

There certainly is a broad range of offending that falls under common assault on police, and this could range from shoving a police officer to a much more violent crime. As such, it is integral that the courts have an appropriate level of discretion to sentence appropriately given the circumstances. Notably, this is not a new issue. We note that the opposition had 16 years and they did not do anything about it, and this was not progressed as a reform.

In regard to Community Corrections officers, we are ensuring that they are included, and there are amendments that bring Community Corrections officers and Community Youth Justice officers into the biological materials offence and aggravated offences generally. This is to ensure that these workers have the same protection as prison officers and youth training centre officers in relation to assaults.

The list of biological material will be expanded to include vomit. The Australian Medical Association considers that this should be included in the list and has anecdotal experience of this being used to harm front-line doctors and nurses. Greater coverage of doctors and nurses in regional areas and attending roadside incidents is really important.

Quite often, there are accidents throughout regional areas, especially where I live in Coomandook. Sadly, we have too many accidents 20 kilometres either way of my place. A lot of the time, an off-duty doctor, nurse or other medical professional will call in and help volunteers from the Coomandook Country Fire Service, of which I am a member, or the Coonalpyn Country Fire Service, which is also a road crash crew, or the local ambulance volunteers. They have to put up with some horrific sights. Friends have told me that they have taken a 12-month rest from attending road crash rescues because they have been traumatised. I salute their service to the community.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: Hear, hear!

Mr PEDERICK: Absolutely. What happens out there is traumatic. Sadly, these crashes happen for a range of reasons. Some are just plain accidents, a lot are related to fatigue and a lot occur when people decide to end their lives. In many cases, they forget that when they steer themselves under a truck, they are causing impact not just to a truck driver but also to emergency service workers who have to attend the scene.

Sometimes it is hard for major crash investigators to determine whether the accident was a suicide but, either way, there is nothing pretty about hitting traffic head on while driving at least 100 km/h or 110 km/h. I commend everyone who has to deal with the aftermath of these accidents. Recently, we have seen far too high a road toll, certainly with regard to motorbike accidents. Many of these crashes have been attributed to speeding. It is very ugly when something goes wrong, especially on a motorbike, where there is virtually no protection other than some leathers or a helmet.

People have to deal with these incidents. My thoughts are with those involved in the emergency services throughout my electorate. There are Country Fire Service units right across from Pinnaroo through to Mount Barker and Tungkillo, down towards Clayton and Milang. In Murray Bridge, we have Metropolitan Fire Service, Country Fire Service and State Emergency Service volunteers. They all do tremendous work in this field and have to witness many things that a lot of other people do not have to see, and I salute them all. I also salute the police officers, doctors and nurses who attend these scenes or have to deal with the carnage when they reach the emergency centres throughout Adelaide and the regions.

In regard to other amendments, they extend the biological materials offence to workers in a hospital's emergency department, persons engaged in retrieval medicine and rural doctors in emergency scenarios. Certainly, the Attorney would like these workers to also be brought into the scheme for aggravated offences, which will be done via regulations under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act in due course, as we are doing with bailiffs, sheriffs and others, or as amendments to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act itself.

This is very important because of the life-saving work of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which services a lot of my community. People think that the Royal Flying Doctor Service just services the outback. They do a fantastic job. I note that they have a new plane which, from what I understand, can do retrievals nearly twice as quickly as other planes they have had and can land on dirt strips, which obviously it has to in order to function in the bush with the bush strips—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: And shorter strips, too.

Mr PEDERICK: —and shorter strips. That is a great boon for people wherever they live. There are retrievals done right throughout South Australia, including throughout my electorate at Lameroo and Pinnaroo. The retrieval teams in the rescue choppers who come out our way do great work. The beauty of it is that they can land right on the road. Obviously, the road is closed if there has been a terrible accident.

I have heard many cases where people owe their lives to those retrieval teams turning up in excellent time because they have landed right at the scene. They can get them to the city in double-quick time, so they can get that badly needed life-saving care. It is very unfair that these very people who are saving lives right across the state are the ones we have to protect with this legislation, but sadly it is a fact of life. Sometimes people are not in a state of mind to appreciate that people are just trying to help.

In regard to the amendments being looked at for workers in hospital emergency departments, this issue has been raised by both the Australian Medical Association and the nurses federation due to many attending front-line incidents outside of emergency department boundaries. Certainly, in a regional seat like mine, the seat of Hammond, this is particularly important, as I have just indicated. There is also another amendment that deals with biological assault offences for everyday people. It creates a new standalone offence for throwing biological material at an ordinary individual, with maximum penalties of two years or, if harm is caused, three years.

The background to this legislation goes back to when the Police Association wanted more changes relating to assaults on police. Work has been undertaken with both the Police Association of South Australia and South Australia Police to determine where we needed to get to and the issues around police assaults, the court sentencing processes and gaps that could be rectified by legislative change.

With those few words, I would like to extend my support for this legislation and salute all our people who do such good work in supporting all the other citizens with their emergency and front-line work. Let's get this legislation through so we can do more to protect their vital work.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (17:24): I rise to speak on the Criminal Law Consolidation (Assaults on Prescribed Emergency Workers) Amendment Bill 2019, brought in by the Attorney-General. It will not be a surprise to many of you to hear that I echo many of the sentiments that have been expressed by members of both sides of the chamber about the need to provide greater protections for our emergency services workers, including South Australia Police, those who work in other emergency services and those who work in our hospitals, from any violent or antisocial behaviour, in particular, assaults.

This has been an issue of significant public discussion, particularly in the last nine to 12 months, coinciding with a campaign that the Police Association of South Australia has been running to try to have the parliament strengthen the laws around those people who are found guilty of assaulting police. It is another area on top of an area for which I had previous responsibility, and that was how the laws protect those people who work in our public transport networks.

Some members, those who were in this place before the last state election, may recall that via regulatory instrument we were able to increase the penalties for those who are found guilty of assaulting public transport workers by ensuring that the treatment of those offences was to be as aggravated offences and hence able to attract significantly higher penalties for when people were convicted.

There has been some commentary both in the contributions made to this place and in the media about how challenging it can be to legislate in this area, not just because there is a strong desire to adhere to the principles which most of us agree on—and the concept of mandatory sentencing has been raised here and how far can and should a parliament go when it comes to requiring the judiciary to act in a particular manner in the sentencing of individuals—but also, perhaps canvassed more on talkback radio rather than in here, in regard to the willingness of the judiciary to mete out punishments to people found guilty of these offences and those punishments aligning with the expectations of the community.

In various instances, it has been a great frustration to some that the parliament has done what it would regard to be its job in passing laws to ensure that there are tough penalties on these sorts of perpetrators the police have done their job in tracking down and arresting, and with the DPP, for example, prosecuting these people who are alleged to have committed these offences, and then to get to that final stage of sentencing in the judicial process and see that sometimes all of that work that has preceded it might be, if I could go so far as to say, perhaps undone, or not completed might be a more generous way to put it, in the dispensing of a significant sentence, if it is a custodial sentence and a period of imprisonment.

This issue has not only emerged recently. The Deputy Premier made comments on radio this morning that she feels a bit frustrated. From her perspective, perhaps understandably, she feels a bit frustrated that some of the media focus has only been on the level of assaults in the last 12 months, and she has pointed out that this is not a brand-new issue. This has unfortunately been bedevilling the community for some time.

She pointed to some figures that are six or seven years old. While that precedes my time in this place, I suspect this is an issue of people being prosecuted and found guilty for assaulting police that has been happening for many, many years, but it has now got to the point where the police representatives, the Police Association of South Australia, feel that something far more substantial needs to be done legislatively. Preferably, after that is done, we need to see these new penalties carried through to the courts and those people who are found guilty of assaulting police feeling the fullest extent of the law that they should.

It does not just stop at police, and the member for Hammond is the most recent speaker to make reference to the vital work that emergency services and health services workers provide in our community. They are amongst those who also need our protections from this sort of behaviour, but if this behaviour does occur then there should be appropriate penalties for them. I do not think that anyone disagrees with any of that.

We can all agree that here we are with a bill in front of us and a bill that needs support, and the question is: does the bill have everything in it that the community would expect of a bill to be passed through this place? That is where there is a difference of opinion between the government and the opposition. It is not the first time we have been in this situation, particularly since the last state election.

There has been a call for the parliament to do more in relation to the issue of penalties or the requirement to try to keep people in prison who have been found guilty of various types of offences. There have been calls in the media, there has been the announcement of action by the opposition, there has been some delay and, finally, we have seen a bill from the government to try to address this.

When the bill has come, welcome though it is otherwise, unfortunately the provisions are not what have been called for by either the opposition or the community. Let's hope that does not mean in this instance that we are not able to work out our differences and arrive at a bill that meets the purpose and requirements of not just members on this side but also those people who have been active in the community about this—most notably, the Police Association of South Australia.

I notice that in some of the Deputy Premier's comments, particularly in the media, she has pointed to the fact that she and her government have consulted with groups beyond the Police Association. Of course, that is right and proper. She is to be commended for speaking to other organisations, such as doctors' representatives, the Australian Medical Association, and the Metropolitan Fire Service and other emergency services groups. From that, she has determined that on balance she has got the bill in the right form which should be supported.

Despite the AMA, the MFS and other groups having a difference of opinion with what the Police Association of South Australia is putting forward, I do not think that is sufficient reason for us not to accept the advice of the Police Association. They are certainly not the representatives of only those workers who are being assaulted. It is clear that, unfortunately, doctors, nurses and other emergency services workers are being assaulted.

If the representatives of those other types of workers beyond police are happy with the Deputy Premier's bill, of itself there is nothing wrong with that. But if we have another group of emergency services workers, like police, who are calling for something more significant, then there is nothing wrong with falling to the highest common denominator when it comes to this legislation, rather than to the average or the lowest common denominator, and what these other groups are calling for.

I do not know specifically what the AMA and the MFS have called for—perhaps we will get some of that information from the Deputy Premier during the committee stage of the bill—or how far away it is from what the Police Association is proposing. But I do think we need this two-pronged go, if I can put it so clumsily, at amending the provisions of the Sentencing Act to provide as much guidance as we possibly can without perhaps potentially overstepping the line into what could reasonably be called imposing mandatory sentencing on the judiciary.

We do need to give them that guidance, and we do need to do so in concert with significantly ramping up these penalties. I am sure the Deputy Premier will argue that she feels that the way in which she is seeking to amend the various legislation is appropriate and strikes the right balance, but that does not accord with our view, which is perhaps not unexpected, but it does not accord with the Police Association's view.

I do not really understand what is lost for the government by adopting the more stringent multifaceted approach that the Police Association is seeking. Surely, it is not for a reason of politics that the government solution is better than the opposition's and hence we can claim credit (to use the personal pronoun) or the government can claim credit for being responsible for changing the law in the most effective way. I hope it is not that.

I really genuinely hope that there is an opportunity here, which can be grasped by both members on our side and members on the government side, to come up with some sort of compromise that goes much further towards what the Police Association is asking for. After all, it is the police, commonly, who are on the end of more of these instances at a severity that is causing them to agitate publicly for this change in the law.

The timing was remarkable, in that this morning and today we see reports of the assault of an off-duty police officer, who had declared himself to be a police officer. If I am correct in the reports I have seen in the media, of the three individuals who were charged in relation to that incident one was convicted and sentenced for 18 months, I think, one was acquitted and I think for the third the charges were withdrawn. I might be wrong about that last instance, but that was my recollection from the media. Anyone who sees the footage of that assault is horrified not only that it happened and that it could happen to a police officer who had declared themselves to be so but also by the severity of the incident.

This was not some one-off clip around the ear: this was a severe beating, at the hands of three men, of an unarmed, unprotected police officer. That attracted a penalty that I think most people in the community would think was manifestly inadequate. That is the most recent example we have to inform our deliberations today; it is not the only example. It is up to us to reset the bar for the police, for the DPP and for the judiciary in making sure that we have a suite of laws across these different acts that are amended in a way that ensures that these sorts of incidents do not attract such a sentence from a court.

Those people who are detractors of making legislative change in this area in response to these sorts of incidents quite commonly say, 'Well, if you don't like the sentence, appeal it.' There is enough case law now, I would argue, that makes it pretty clear to the police and pretty clear to the DPP that, even if they were to appeal these particular matters, they can have no confidence that they will be treated any differently when it comes to sentencing through appeal. That means that the law has to change, and that means that law has to change substantially.

I really do not think that the bill we have here from the Attorney changes the law substantially enough. The Police Association, the representative of the nearly 5,000 police we have in South Australia, the ones who, along with our other emergency services workers, are commonly on the front line, do not believe that it is enough.

While it is abhorrent to all of us that this type of behaviour is imposed on doctors, nurses, other hospital workers and other emergency services workers, I would put it that it is more likely to be the police who are on the end of this. It is more likely to be the police who place themselves in a situation where they are breaking up hostile situations, where they are intervening in live assaults and putting themselves in harm's way.

They are not the only ones. I stress, of course, the doctors, nurses, hospital workers and the other emergency services workers. But it is the police who perhaps provide very good information to us about what is exactly required in the laws and how they need to be changed. I do not think it is an onerous ask of the Police Association for them to seek their own specific provisions around police and emergency services workers. It is not giving them their own act or their own law, as the Deputy Premier put it this morning, much to the offence of the secretary of the Police Association. All they are asking for is an offence within the law that particularly contemplates police and emergency services workers.

I would hope that we can move past any sort of partisan posturing or politicking or move past any issue of pride to make sure that we can ensure we find the right judgement in toughening up these laws. If we do not, and if we only seek to change the legislation in the way that the Attorney-General has put it in her bill, then I am deeply fearful that we will continue to see the sorts of sentences meted out to these offenders that were reported in the media today. That, frankly, is not good enough. It is up to us to prescribe in law and set the expectations for the judiciary about what constitutes a breach of the law and how people should be punished for it. I do not think we should resile from that.

It is with those brief remarks that I implore the government to work with the opposition here to try to find some common ground much closer to the position of the Police Association so that all 47 of us can put our hand on our heart and say that we have done everything we possibly can to ensure that these laws will see convicted offenders face much stricter sentences from now on.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:42): I wish to acknowledge and thank all members who have made a contribution to the debate on this bill to date. That includes the member for Elizabeth, who is the opposition spokesperson on police matters, our own Minister for Police and the members for Heysen, Newland, Hammond, Lee, King and Morphett.

I have to acknowledge that I was a little bit distracted during the latter part of the debate because I received a submission earlier this afternoon during the course of this debate from the Law Society of South Australia. I will refer to that a little later. I indicate that, having received the submission—and I have provided a copy of it to the opposition—whilst we will not complete this debate today, we can both have a good look at it overnight, I am sure. I will be addressing some aspects in it that I have been able to quickly peruse.

The general tenor of the submission from the Law Society of South Australia will probably not be very surprising to many people. They have received our bill and proposed amendments. On a quick read, I do not think they have actually received the amendments of Mr Odenwalder. I am not sure but—

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, the Law Society. In considering their submission, I think the general tenor I can paraphrase is to say they do not consider the aspects covered by this bill either necessary or appropriate. But, as I say, to give them justice I will refer to a number of their matters in due course.

Mr ODENWALDER: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is my sad duty to draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will return to the Law Society's submission shortly, but I wish to thank the opposition for indicating that they will support the bill, although it has been made very clear that they take the view that their amendments would strengthen its benefit and operation and they will be seeking the house's support of them. However, in default, as I understand it, they will support the legislation.

Can I just identify a couple of matters that I think need some clarification. I accept that the member for Elizabeth, in his prior life as a police officer, has had some hands-on experience. I do not doubt he is a member of the Police Association. As the union representative body for the police force, it is important that the Police Association's position be considered, and it has been by the government—in fact, so much so that amendments have been foreshadowed and tabled to accommodate further consideration of matters raised by the Police Association.

In recent times, some police statistics have been presented in respect of the numbers of police assaults. It does concern me to note that, whilst the opposition have indicated an increase in police assaults over the last 12 months, they have failed to take into account the police assaults over the last seven years, which have remained consistently high but have been a lot higher. I think it is important that we place on the record that, although last year's data suggests that it is now at some 771, in fact in 2012-13 the number was 880. In 2015-16, it was 784, and in 2016-17 it was 773.

No-one accepts that any of these matters should be tolerated as an acceptable number, but I make the point because there has been an increase in the previous 12 months from the preceding year; it is a monumental reduction from what happened in the years preceding it. Perhaps that is why the former government did nothing about increasing and strengthening the penalties applicable to assaults on police generally during their term in office. I do not know why they did not. I do not know why they did not strengthen this further, given the data that has been raised by the member for Elizabeth as recently as the last 24 hours.

I do not know why we have not heard from the Leader of the Opposition, who was a former police minister, in relation to what he did or did not do, why he did not take any action or, if he took any action to the cabinet, why they did not accept it. Why is this suddenly a problem that we have to clean up? I do not know the answer to that, but I do know this: we are a responsible government, we are acting to clean this up and we are proceeding with a bill to take into account a very wide spectrum of people we see are on the front line and deserve to have some further consideration.

In looking at this issue, it is very important for us that we do not just look at the police as the emergency front-line workers that they are—we recognise that—and that we do not just look at increasing penalties. It is really important that we look more broadly, and we have. The work that we have undertaken with stakeholders regarding the legislation unsurprisingly has included the police commissioner as the head of SAPOL; PASA, of course, which has been referred to; the Australian Medical Association, SA division; the Country Fire Service; ANMF; and volunteer groups, all of whom support our bill.

In our view, it is clear that the Labor Party have not gone to the extent of considering the spectrum of those views; otherwise, I suggest that they would not just be making public statements to support 100 per cent of what the police union wants. I might add that we have accepted most of that. It is incorporated in the bill that we have presented and even more with the amendments. Another thing that concerns me is that I think the opposition have been attempting to present an argument to the public that their support of the PASA position will ensure that, somehow or other, there is a commitment that people who assault police will go to gaol and that there will be some imposition of this.

Even the member for Elizabeth concedes that his proposal in respect of the second suspended sentence is not mandatory sentencing. It is quite clear that both major parties are not supporting mandatory sentencing, but the impression is being presented that the proposed legislation will ensure that; that is, there will be no suspended sentences for a second offence within five years for a person who assaults a police officer. Let me just explain what happens in the real world.

In the real world, a charge of assault can be laid under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. A judge can look at what his obligations might be if the Labor amendment were to pass and say, 'I can't give this person a suspended sentence. I might elect not to give them a prison term at all.' In which case, the assertion that people who commit an offence against a police officer will go to gaol is actually a complete myth. It should not be out there being perpetuated as the necessary answer to ensure that occurs because it is just not going to translate to that.

If the Labor Party as the opposition had consulted with a number of other parties, they may have felt that their consideration of accepting the government's position on this had merit, but it is disappointing to note that that appears to have escaped their attention. They have been prepared to perpetuate the union's position and only the union's position. Let me highlight the position in relation to police when one takes into account the police commissioner as well.

Let's look at the removal of section 6, assaults, from the Summary Offences Act. That is essentially what we are proposing. We are not going as far as the opposition wants, which is to remove hinder police as well. We say that this proposal to remove assaults from the Summary Offences Act and leaving only the Criminal Law Consolidation Act charges is probably unnecessary. Nevertheless, we have accepted the request by the Police Association to remove the assault of police from the Summary Offences Act. The police commissioner supports that proposal and states that it would provide:

…a clear policy position to set a deterrent to members of the public regarding assaults on police (and other like worker) and removes the potential default position to a lesser offence in the [Summary Offences Act].

As we have said, strictly speaking, no change is necessary as it is already open to the prosecutor to charge an offender with the section 20 Criminal Law Consolidation Act offence instead of the section 6 Summary Offences Act offence where they consider it necessary or appropriate to do so under the circumstances. For example, the prosecutor may consider that a higher penalty should be sought for the particular offending, or that a summary offence, under section 6 of the Summary Offences Act, should be charged rather than a minor offence, such as in section 20 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

Despite no change being necessary, the government accept the advice from SAPOL and PASA to provide a clear policy position and deterrent to those who assault police. This further removes the potential default position to a lesser offence in the Summary Offences Act. We must be aware of the broader considerations here, particularly the ability of police prosecutors to agree to a reduction in circumstances.

Overcharging as a way to recognise the gravity of assaulting a police officer does not benefit anyone, least of all the police officer offended against, particularly if the facts will simply not stand up to a robust contest. SAPOL's prosecutions branch undertakes a decision-making process when considering a plea of a lower level charge. Consultation also occurs with affected members. SAPOL appreciates that withdrawal and reduction of charges in circumstances presents an element of the justice system working as it should. Facts like this are often not reported in the media.

The charging of offences against police must meet the same standards as charges against members of the general public. In respect of the retaining of section 6, hindering police, I will canvass that on the next occasion. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. J.A.W. Gardner.

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