HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-04-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (15:42): I rise to make a brief contribution to the COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill. As the member for Lee has already articulated, the opposition in a very general sense supports this bill and the measures it contains. However, we of course maintain our right and obligation as an opposition to interrogate certain matters, to ask questions, and indeed to reserve our right to amend where we think improvements could be made.

We all have the same aim in mind, and that is to further protect our community from the spread of this awful disease, the COVID-19 virus. Any amendments we move, any questions we ask and any criticism we make of the bill will be in the spirit of cooperation as we try to improve the bill, and to improve the lives of South Australians in the face of this awful disease.

From the outset—and other members have articulated this—the opposition has attempted to be supportive, cooperative and constructive throughout this whole crisis, particularly through the work of the leader and the member for Kaurna, who have been out there every day with suggestions and sometimes criticism. The criticism has always been framed towards improving our response to COVID-19 as a community.

It is becoming trite to say that we are all in this together, but we are all in this together. We can all declare an interest in this. We are all directly affected. We all, of course, have family members who are economically affected by this crisis. We all have relatives and friends who are perhaps more vulnerable to adverse health outcomes as a result of the spread of this horrible disease, and it has changed the lives of all of us in many small ways.

My wife and two young children recently moved to a house on my parents' street, in the very street that I grew up on, so that my young kids could be close to their grandparents. Almost immediately, we started observing the practice of not visiting them anymore. We now try to pass by their house every evening and wave through the fence. They come to the front door and my kids do a bit of digging in their garden—and my dad has to go out and rectify it the next day, of course—but that is the extent to which we can now visit their grandparents.

That is the small way it has affected us in our immediate life. It has also affected the way we as members of parliament conduct ourselves and conduct our day-to-day business. We, of course, still have to continue working. We provide what we like to think is an essential service to our community, both here legislating, which I hope will continue, and providing a service to our immediate community in terms of solving their problems and providing justice of the peace services in many cases, and that of course has changed. We are still working, but we have to modify the ways in which we work. We have to work in less close proximity to each other, with less face-to-face contact, but our services and our commitment to our community must continue to get through this crisis together.

I will limit my remarks on the bill to the Emergency Management Act, which is the closest to my portfolio areas. Other members have made valuable contributions in terms of their own areas of responsibility. It is important to note, again, that any criticism or any implied criticism I make of the bill is entirely in terms of wanting to see the best result for the people of South Australia, and it is not to be taken as opposition to the bill.

The bill does give the government, and particularly the police commissioner in his role as State Coordinator, extraordinary powers, powers like we have never seen before. It is worth noting that, and it is worth noting again that we are generally supportive of this bill, but it is very important to put on the record that these are extraordinary powers. They are time limited. They are no doubt necessary, but they are extraordinary nonetheless.

It is important to remember that the powers afforded to the police commissioner in his role as State Coordinator currently under section 25 of the act—and particularly section 25(2)—which I absolutely support, are already very broad, and this builds on them. I will go through the detail later, and I will flag perhaps some questions I may have in the committee stage, unless the Attorney has time to address them in her closing remarks to this debate.

I will pause, though, to say that the police commissioner has conducted himself, as far as I have seen and as you would expect, absolutely splendidly throughout this crisis. He has risen to the occasion, and I could not imagine a better person in charge right at the minute in the State Coordinator role. He is doing an excellent job. There is no criticism from me at all, and the police themselves are doing an excellent job under extraordinary circumstances.

I get quite regular anecdotal reports from various members of the constabulary who, despite various grumbles in various ways, are very supportive of the commissioner and very supportive of the response that is happening. They do, of course, have criticisms around the edges, which will come to light eventually I am sure, but at the moment there is a very real sense that they have a job to do. They are proud to be doing that job.

In many cases they are like nurses I am told, choosing to isolate themselves from their families in order that they might go out on patrol every day to do their job, come home at night, and, like I do with my parents, wave through the fence, presumably, then go to bed and get up the next day and do it all again and put themselves at risk for our community. I am very proud of them. They are very proud of themselves, and I think they are doing an excellent job.

Getting back to the bill, I want to state again that I do not want to indicate any opposition to any of the provisions but, simply say that it needs to be put on the record how extraordinary these powers are, and of course these are extraordinary times. I heard the commissioner on the radio this morning talking about some of the figures around compliance, and generally they seem pretty good in terms of the compliance of people who are told to self-isolate. Out of 2,900 checks, we were told this morning, nine fines have been issued and 13 cautions have been given. So, in terms of self-isolation, it seems on those figures at least that people are complying with directions when they are directly given to them by the authorities.

I do have some fears that in the broader community—and there may well be pockets that are doing it better than others—some people are not observing as well as they could the social distancing rules and conventions that most of us are accepting. When I go into my local Woolworths to anxiously get my essential supplies, I am always a bit dismayed by the people who do not seem to be taking this as seriously as they should be. I urge everyone to take this seriously, as all the authorities are doing, and observe social distancing: go to the shops only when you need to, go out only when you need to. All those things should be common sense in a time like this.

As I said, as an opposition we have sought from the outset to be constructive and supportive. We absolutely praise the government where it has handled this correctly and are constructive where we think we can improve on the response. That is why we have publicly indicated that we will be introducing some legislation—I foreshadowed that today—that seeks to protect our front-line workers and, of course, in the process protect the whole community.

First, we intend to introduce simple amendments to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act that create a new offence that directly relates to COVID-19 and the particular danger it poses to our front-line workers. It is important that the legislation I will be introducing recognises the role of retail workers as well as what we would normally term front-line workers. There is now a well-established definition of an emergency worker or front-line worker that includes people like transport workers. At this time and in this particular crisis we need to include retail workers in any of those definitions.

Retail workers are on the front line every day. Everyone needs to go to the shops on occasion, whether or not it is a successful trip, to get their supplies. Even when they are not going to the shops they are getting home delivery when they can, when it is available, when the products are available, and there are people working 24/7 in warehouses trying to make these things happen, driving trucks, all those people. However, the people working in the supermarkets stocking shelves and manning checkouts really are on the front line.

The legislation I will be introducing tomorrow—and I am happy to talk about this with anyone on the government benches who wants to discuss it—does include retail workers. It provides penalties of up to 10 years' imprisonment for an assault or a threat on one of those workers, including retail workers, which involves the COVID-19 virus, whether the assailant has the virus or not.

This builds a little on the legislation we debated last year on the assault on police legislation. At that time we discussed—at considerable length—the spitting and coughing, that type of assault that directly affects our front-line workers. That is disgusting behaviour, of course, but it has now taken on a much more sinister twist, and we believe it should be much more severely punished in certain circumstances.

We have also flagged further legislation that gives the State Coordinator the authority to impose electronic devices on people who breach isolation or quarantine orders under the act and provides a penalty of up to one year imprisonment for removing or tampering with that device. It remains to be seen how that proposed legislation might interact with the legislation we are debating today in terms of the new powers the State Coordinator will have under the Emergency Management Act, but that is perhaps a debate for the committee stage, or perhaps even in private members' business tomorrow—we will see how we go.

That particular amendment was drafted before I became aware of this bill. Again, I am happy to work with the government on any hybrid legislation that provides that people who are required to self-isolate do in fact self-isolate, and that failing to self-isolate is properly punished. As I keep saying, we all want the same thing here: we want to keep the community safe and we want to slow and stop the spread of COVID-19.

Regarding the bill itself, I will briefly go over the provisions that affect section 25 of the Emergency Management Act. I will not criticise any of the provisions proposed but merely comment on them; any questions or comments are not to be taken as opposition. Again, I want to put on the record the obvious fact that these are extraordinary powers we are extending to the State Coordinator. They are temporary. They will be very useful to the State Coordinator in doing their job, but we should never forget that they are extraordinary. Today, we are giving the State Coordinator extraordinary powers on top of the extraordinary powers that he already has under the Emergency Management Act.

Perhaps this is a question the Attorney could easily answer in her contribution to this debate rather than at the committee stage. The bill deletes the term in 25(2)(a) 'using such force as necessary', but I would have thought that in the context of this bill, which does give the police commissioner more extraordinary powers in general, winding back 25(2)(a) or removing the reference to using any such force as necessary seems a little unnecessary, and I would like some explanation. There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation, but I would like to hear it.

The changes to the section delete the current subsection (3) and make some additions which, as I keep saying, give the police commissioner, the State Coordinator, extraordinary powers. New subsection (3) allows the State Coordinator to give directions to all people generally, power which he already has under section 2, but again that requires some interrogation. The directions must be published, and that is good.

New subsection (5) clarifies some powers and also states that the police commissioner can act, even if it contravenes certain laws. I think I understand why. I support that in this context, but it would be interesting to interrogate that a little further at the committee stage. Also, the new subsection (6) states that some people might be exempt from any direction. I can imagine the situations where that might arise, but again it would be good to get that on the record from the Attorney today before we vote on the final bill.

I flag that I might ask a question about expiation fees. The expiations seem a little low, given the emergency and given the powers vested in the State Coordinator under this new legislation. Again, there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for why there are such extraordinary powers to limit the liberties of South Australians but then such a small penalty for those who contravene those directions. I will be asking a question about that if I get the chance, unless the Attorney again wants to make a brief comment about that in this debate.

None of my comments should be taken as opposition to any part of this bill. We need to do all we can. We have been a constructive and cooperative opposition at every step during this crisis, as we should be. We are all in this together, and I hope that we can all work together over the next few days to come up with some very good legislation that protects South Australians from this awful disease.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay) (15:57): There is no doubt that we are in an unprecedented time. South Australians are looking to their elected leaders for information, for direction, for understanding and, most of all, for our safety and wellbeing. This bill is significant because of the extraordinary powers it hands to key decision-makers. Labor is supporting this bill. We know it is necessary, and we know it is important; however, we do have questions about how it will operate and when it will commence and when it is rescinded.

To defend ourselves from the unchecked spread of COVID-19, Australians are being asked to change our behaviour unlike we ever have before. Our response means that all of us play a role: staying home, socially distancing and only travelling if it is essential. If you can work from home, then you should do so. If you can supervise your children, then they can be schooled at home. We are encouraged not to visit our grandparents or vulnerable relatives unless essential for care or compassionate reasons. We are asking, as always, for people to be respectful of others, and not to hoard essential items and groceries at the expense of others less fortunate.

I have been speaking to my constituents, and the vast majority are following the messages to stay safe. Many of those people over 70 are staying home, and they have been asking family and friends to help with shopping. A visit to the doctor has been a highlight for many who are trapped in their garden, but in general they are very stoic and willing to make changes to their everyday lives. However, we have also found people who are lost in the system and need help.

As the support systems get up and running or expand to meet demand, especially the ability to order groceries to be delivered from key supermarket chains, this will relieve some of that stress. We have also seen the ability to send pharmacy medications through Australia Post. With prescriptions renewed and Telehealth available, these will assist those who are without transport and who are staying home. I will continue to reach out to my constituents, to be a voice, to advocate for them, during this very challenging time.

I want to talk a little bit about tourism. The Prime Minister, through the support of the national cabinet, has made some very significant decisions to close down industry sectors. This has particularly hit the tourism and hospitality sector hard. With the support of the banks freezing loans and access to the JobKeeper package for their employees, our best hope is that these tourism and hospitality businesses can go into hibernation and, at the end, when this is over, they can flourish again. Unfortunately, many are not sure if they will make it through that hibernation period. Their cash flow has reduced to almost zero and their bookings reduced to zero.

As I said before, they already had concerns caused by bushfires, the hit to Chinese tourists because of the outbreak of COVID-19 and now, of course, because of our decision, which was the right thing to do, to close down certain industries. Last week, the state government, through the South Australian Tourism Commission, announced a tourism support package. While I welcome this package and the diversity that the package provides, it is simply not enough. What concerns me even more is that this is from the existing budget, as I understand it. This is not new money. This is just repackaging of money that would have been spent on marketing in a normal case.

Tourism support is welcome, but much more is needed for this vital industry. Even before COVID-19, we had some concerns. We had the lowest support, the lowest confidence, in the visitor economy since 2012 and two significant announcements of cuts: $23 million announced in 2018 and the next in 2019. This sector was experiencing a difficult time. I call upon this government, once again, to reverse those cuts. This is an important industry. It is a key employer in the state. When this time is over, we want them to flourish and we want them to be there and re-establish.

Let me turn to the specifics of this bill. The COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill 2020 is to make various temporary modifications to the law of the state in response to this pandemic. It makes amendments to the Emergency Management Act 2004, the Payroll Tax Act 2009, the South Australian Public Health Act, the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 and related others.

In relation to residential tenancies, I welcome the state's response to the public declaration by the Prime Minister that no Australian will be evicted as a result of hardship and incapacity to pay for the next six months. It is necessary for the state to make these amendments to our legislation, to enact this here. Many of my constituents are renters; in fact, in Australia more people rent than have a mortgage or own their house outright.

Those who have lost their livelihoods are understandably very nervous about their ability to make their rental payments. It is a critical form of housing in my electorate. According to the last census, there are nearly 5,000 households who are renters in the electorate of Ramsay. The need for shelter is one of the most fundamental of human rights, and that is why this is so important to South Australians. Any great society must always look after its vulnerable, so I welcome the temporary moratorium on residential tenancy evictions. Nobody should be made homeless because of this pandemic.

The provisions in the bill will offer some relief for those who are struggling to pay their rent, especially if they have lost their job or have had a reduction in income. With the announcement of the JobSeeker and the JobKeeper payments, financial support will eventually flow; however, some will miss out. There is also a time lag before these payments are received. There are, however, some questions still hanging over the bill, especially in relation to people who live in accommodation that is not covered under the Residential Tenancies Act or the Residential Parks Act.

For example, people who live in boarding house accommodation are often vulnerable people, and perhaps these are people who are forgotten in the proposed bill. The people who take advantage of this type of accommodation are often a younger demographic. Of course, we often see both local and international students in boarding house or share house arrangements.

I would like to talk briefly about international students because this is an incredibly important part of our economy and a key part of our trade services in South Australia. Prior to COVID-19, South Australia was home to more than 38,000 international students. Of course, many of us were aware that at one point about 6,500 students were stranded overseas and unable to return to start their studies in Australia. Some of them have come back, and they continue to want to come back as well.

Had they not been stranded overseas at the beginning of the year, many would still be living here and they would be looking for how we could be supporting them. Unfortunately, many of them are unable to go back to their country but at the same time face potential housing challenges here. Many of these students, including international students, work part time in hospitality, and they have lost their income. While many are supported by families back home, they contributed to their living costs through the work that they did. While the universities are putting together hardship student care packages, many students will need additional support.

I say to the government at this time that we need to consider how we protect and support this very important industry. It is very important that our international students have security of their accommodation while they are in student housing and residential colleges, and I will be asking details of this coverage in the bill. We know that the bill introduces new protections for tenants who are experiencing hardship as a result of COVID-19. It says that the landlord may not increase the rent payable, inspection of property will be via electronic means, there will be no repairs or repairs can go ahead with approval and they cannot be terminated solely on the grounds of a breach of the residential tenancy due to failure to pay rent where the tenant is suffering financial hardship.

However, another area that is also covered here is commercial leases, and I welcome the legislation amending these leases. I have had many, many calls from people in the tourism sector who have had a really difficult three months. For many of them, they do not know whether they have a business anymore. They do not know whether they will be able to hibernate and flourish again. Many of them are owed considerable amounts of money that the people that they supported simply cannot pay.

What was particularly clear to me were their concerns about their lease payments and their rent relief. They needed to know not just that the Prime Minister was saying they should not be evicted but that they were being backed up. I am pleased to see that that is in this legislation. In particular, I was approached within my electorate by the Salisbury Business Association. They approached me for two reasons: in regard to support and in regard to representation. I recently wrote to the Premier on this matter.

Their key concerns, which at that point had not been addressed, were the need for immediate commercial rent relief and having that ongoing for six months; support for landlords and leasing agents who may be impacted by rent relief; financial support to offset utilities accounts and other operational on-costs; and grants to offset income forfeited through the impact of COVID-19 on supply chains. They asked me to advocate on their behalf to our Premier.

These are the issues that they have, but in addition to this they were concerned by the lack of representation of small business on the recently convened Premier's Industry Response and Recovery Council. They have suggested that the Small Business Commissioner or potentially business associations be included on that recovery council. They feel that their voice is not being heard strongly enough. Can I just mention the role of the Small Business Commissioner. In this bill, his role is detailed quite clearly. His role of mediation, which has always been there, is better emphasised.

Recently, I was asked by a business in my electorate to advocate for him because the landlord was not accepting that he had a reduction in business and therefore would not be able to pay the rent as it was. He had already decided to approach the landlord as soon as his business was decreasing in numbers. He was down to about 30 per cent of his takings that he had had previously, but the landlord at that point was unclear about any necessity for him to reduce the rent. My office called the Small Business Commissioner, and I have to say we had excellent service. They did a fantastic job providing advice and support.

What I seek from the Attorney in this bill is additional support and more money to run the small business commission. I think the commissioner will require that because he is going to be swamped. I think he is going to have a lot of small businesses going to him who, with the best intentions, have not been able to mediate with their landlords. Let me be clear: I understand that everyone is impacted, not only the company, workplace or business that is paying rent. We often have property managers in the middle, who are trying to support what the landlord requires and needs. We are all in this together.

The legislation before us today gives some protections, and I welcome that, but I think that the Small Business Commissioner will have increased needs. Those in the tourism area will welcome this legislation, but it is only the start of the support that they need. There are many challenges facing government at this time, and everyone understands the enormity of this unprecedented situation. If businesses, small and large, and households cannot find their way through to the other side, we are likely to see a rise in poverty, unemployment and social decline not seen in Australia in my lifetime. It is a cold, hard reality.

This bill is significant. We are placing our trust in this government. We are giving them unprecedented powers to deal with an unprecedented social and economic situation. We will not get the benefit of second chances and we must not leave anyone behind.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (16:14): I wish to thank all those who have contributed to the second reading of the bill. There have been a number and they have been heartfelt and I think really do reflect the community's concern about our current situation in this pandemic and the circumstances that surround it. There are concerns about that; however, I think that, based on some comments made by contributors to this debate in the parliament, there is also a confidence in the government, and that is good. We need to be able to work together to ensure that we are going to get South Australians through this, and that is part of our responsibility.

In response to the member for Lee, who I think described the possibility of parliament not sitting as it might become an inconvenience, I indicate one thing, and let me be abundantly clear: it is this government's position that we are not seeking to remotely manage parliament. We have not presented in this bill or at all any proposal to change the state constitution. We are mindful of the fact that we can operate as a parliament with a minimum of 17 members of parliament in this house and a quorum of 10 in the Legislative Council, and that is precisely what we intend to continue to do. We respect and recognise the purpose and benefit of the parliament in not only its role but also its oversight role of executive and other aspects of law in our state.

We intend to continue, unlike a number of other parliaments around the country, Liberal and Labor alike, who have taken the step of simply adjourning for six months or so and not proposing to sit. The comment was made, for example, of the commonwealth proposing this and then finding that they would need to activate parliament for the purposes of passing legislation, which on all accounts of the media, is actually what is happening, which is good. An extra $130 billion is well needed at this point, so that is excellent.

But make no mistake that, for all the reasons explained by the Premier, in this state we are fortunately in a position that is at the high end of addressing concerns, providing protections and realising the dream, which is to flatten the curve. Therefore, we as a government feel very strongly that, where possible, this parliament will continue to operate.

The only exception to the provision of parliamentary oversight is the aspect in this bill that relates to the Public Works Committee. It is for the reasons that we have explained, but I am happy to further explain in the committee if required. Approvals in this state are a very essential part of the process of infrastructure. Unlike a lot of other states, where a $4 million cap on infrastructure is almost disbursement money, a number of these that have parliamentary oversight are at the sort of $50 million threshold, but we have it starting at $4 million and we respect that.

In the bill, we are seeking to enable the committee to, firstly, be able to meet through audio links; secondly, be able to provide its reports to the parliament with immediate publication if that is the committee's wish; and, thirdly, in certain circumstances, be able to truncate that process, after it has met and at the expiration of five days, to be able to introduce a hastening of that process. With that exception, we are committed to continuing to operate.

In relation to the contribution of the member for Kaurna in his role as shadow minister, I will not answer all of that. I hope that this year he is going to get his own influenza shot. I remember when he was a young fledgling adviser to a former minister for health in this parliament he had not had his shot. I reminded him of the importance of it and that, as a very senior adviser to the minister for health, he should get his flu shot. He apparently promptly went down and did it because he proudly told me later that he had done it, so I am really pleased about that.

I hope that he has a long and happy life for the benefit of his own family as a result of his annual flu shots. It is probably the only advice he has ever taken. I think we need to take the advice, not of me, but of our health professionals in relation to this. In all seriousness, this is an important part of what we need to do here. We need to set an example, whether it is from washing our hands to not visiting the regions. These are the things on which we need to take careful advice from those who know what they are doing in this area.

There are other aspects which I could make comment on, but there were a couple of matters raised which I think I could easily respond to. One was made by the member for Hurtle Vale in relation to employment opportunities for casual nurses, some of whom were her friends, who are employed in the private hospital sector and are—

Mr Picton interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, no. This is in relation to her contribution, thank you member for Kaurna. In her contribution, she was talking about those who were in the private sector who were immediately vulnerable income-wise because they had lost shifts, and that is fine. I just remind her that the Premier has indicated that the Department for Health now has signed up an extra 1,000 nurses to come back to be retrained to be able to assist in future work. Should she have any nurses in either her friendship group or her electorate, I would urge her to look at those opportunities. Some, of course, may want to just keep themselves available for private sector work.

If that is the case, I remind her of another announcement by the Premier, confirmed again today, that as a government we have signed a historic agreement with the private sector for them to be able to supplement the COVID-19 response. Qualified nurses are there. They are valuable. They are like gold at the moment, so we want to be able to give them every opportunity for employment. If they want to look at other activity, there is the Jobs Hub which is a new commonwealth initiative to tell all Australians about what else they can do to look for different employment in a time when some jobs are lost, for example in hospitality and tourism. We have heard all about that today. Some have been absolutely smashed and we need to be able to encourage, retrain, assist, relocate if necessary and re-employ where possible.

I think the member for Ramsay mentioned that she was concerned that rental relief may not relate to some of the boarding houses. It does. I just want to be clear about that. She raised another matter, which has immediately skipped my mind, but no doubt in committee she will ask me again about that. I will also say that, while this has been going on, I have had some conversations with the members representing the opposition, the independent member for Florey and the independent member for Frome to consider some amendments.

I will try to summarise the position. Firstly, in relation to the independent member for Florey, I propose to foreshadow an amendment, which has been prepared because I have seen the draft of it, so it has been distributed, which will provide for a cessation of the emergency arrangements for the period of the declaration or six months, whichever is the latter. We have the authority to propose that. I know that the member has looked at the six months option as an immediate cut-off which means we would come back to parliament.

Members would be aware that the bill that is before us basically has, except for some items in schedule 3, a cessation of its application at the end of the period of declarations for this COVID-19. Whether that is three months or six months or nine months, we do not know. It is a matter that is actually in the hands for a determination to be made by the Coordinator, the police commissioner, to be the Coordinator in those circumstances.

I want to inform members that we had looked at this question of having a six-month cut-off and then coming back to parliament, but we really moved away from that in proposing this bill because it might only be three months. We were happy for it to be cancelled out at six months, but in this instance we are proposing another option. Secondly, I have foreshadowed and seen published an amendment from the member for Florey about a capacity for the Legislative Review Committee to suspend the operation of a regulation that is not agreed to.

Thirdly, it has been foreshadowed to confine major emergencies for only one period of 14 days post the original announcement, and I indicate that will be opposed. In relation to the matters the opposition raised, there were two things that we consider to be of merit—I am sorry; it is only one now I think of it. It is probably because the member for Florey had almost taken the steam out of some of this proposal.

In relation to the question of appointments and the expansion of those in the COVID-19 environment—that is, someone whose term of office comes up during these next few months and we do not have time to advertise, or people are too busy to be able to apply, all reasons that it might be reasonable to extend—I appreciate the indication from the opposition that they will support this, but there should be a time limit on it, and I indicate that one of our proposed amendments will be a six-month time limit on that.

I just want to get on the table what we are doing. I know it is a little out of order in relation to the second reading, but I know they are coming. The sooner I can let you know what is at least agreed, the sooner we can target areas of concern that might otherwise have needed to be addressed in committee. I would also like to place on the record my appreciation to a number of people who have assisted in us being able to pull together urgent legislation, bearing in mind, as one of the contributors has indicated, this is not the first COVID-19 legislation and it probably will not be the last.

We are already receiving some requests from industry and stakeholders to either seek relief or have reform. They have not been seen to be as urgent as what we are dealing with today, but they are certainly coming and we will obviously need to give them consideration. If we think they need to be considered by the parliament, then of course we will bring them to the parliament in the next period, which we expect to still be the next sitting in May. Nevertheless, we are still working on those things and we will progress them.

Bringing this large lot of work together has involved a significant amount of work in consulting with and seeking the advice and hearing the proposals of the police commissioner as our State Coordinator. To do that, we have had the services of the Solicitor-General, the Crown Solicitor, his team, Legislative Services, and parliamentary counsel, who have been in the mix as well, all working overtime to be able to bring together this type of legislation.

I can tell you right now that, whilst we have not been able to consult with lots of people we normally would in the progress of any bill—stakeholders, as such, and industry—we have noted the position of the Prime Minister and the federal council on the importance of providing relief in relation to residential, commercial and retail tenancies. We have listened to the public advocate, Ms Anne Gale, and consulted with her in respect of the Guardianship and Administration Act amendments to deal with both the protection and support of those with mental illness and their accommodation providers.

We have had extensive consultation with the Coordinator, the police commissioner, Grant Stevens, in relation to the things that he sees as important. No less important, obviously, is that there has been consultation with the Auditor-General whose powers and relief in this bill need consideration. I have also consulted with the Chair of the Public Works Committee, and indeed members of staff here at the parliament, to try to make sure that we are able to consider even basic things like who, when, where and how people can meet with audiovisual facilities.

With that, a big thanks to all those people for stepping up and indeed to my own parliamentary team for coping with the fact that quite comprehensive legislation is being presented in relatively short time frames, which again the opposition and crossbenchers have had to accommodate. The shadow minister, for example, the Hon. Kyam Maher in another place, who probably does not really like getting texts, emails and phone calls from me on weekends, has nevertheless been very accommodating in that regard as well.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr PICTON: In relation to this bill, I understand that the government has referred to this as being part of its strong plan, and the Premier has referred a number of times to the government's plan to deal with COVID-19. I am just wondering whether the Attorney can outline exactly what plan that is referring to. Is that the SA Health Viral Respiratory Disease Pandemic Response Plan, including influenza, COVID-19, SARS and MERS, version 6, March 2020? Is that the plan that the government refers to, or is there another broader whole-of-government plan that the Premier is referring to?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The question is a little bit general, but there are two plans in existence, as best I know. One is the one you have just referred to, which of course has a profile in relation to health management in a pandemic, and you are familiar with that I am sure. The second is a state management plan, which is under the Emergency Management Act—I do not know whether I have the correct title. There is a plan. I cannot answer the question in a general way, but he may well be referring to that on some of the occasions that you say that he has referred to a plan.

Mr PICTON: In relation to the state emergency plan, is that the plan that has been in existence for some time to deal with a range of different emergencies, or has there been a significant variant of that which has been determined and revised in relation to COVID-19?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just finding in the act where it is, but there is a provision under part 1A of the Emergency Management Act 2004 for a State Emergency Management Plan, and quite possibly, member for Kaurna, you were in some way involved, even as an adviser, in its preparation under the previous government because it has been around for some time. It is a bit of a worry, isn't it—someone who didn't even get an influenza shot.

In any event, in 2004 the act passed—so it is 16 years ago—and from that a plan has developed. I think the one we currently have has been in existence for some years, but I am going to get the Crown Solicitor to have a look at the date for you. It is probably on the website. We will come back to you on that. Do you have another question?

Mr PICTON: So it has not been revised for COVID-19 disease?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, not that I am aware of. I do not think so, no. I am getting noes.

Ms COOK: In relation to the creation of the bill, I just want to check in to see where you have actually consulted in relation to the tenancy components. What peak bodies have you asked, and have you met with anyone with lived experience in relation to this, any groups in the community, in order to inform the impact of these changes on them?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I have indicated, in short these initiatives were developed as a result of the federal cabinet meeting. I think they call it a federal council, actually, but whatever it is obviously it is the Prime Minister and the premiers around the country. The announcement on 29 March was that it needed to be done. The member would be very well aware there were already concerns at that stage (over week ago now) from people who had lost their employment, and from that their concern both about their capacity to pay for their homes and their shops and offices. It largely came out of that cohort.

My understanding is that the Treasury office, which is now managing the question of how it is going to work in the sense of financial relief, is dealing with what I would call the usual stakeholders, but I cannot give you any more information than that. I am advised there is the Small Business Commissioner, of course, who I have spoken to a lot about these matters. That was the other matter that came from the member Ramsay, who was concerned that the Small Business Commissioner might need more resources. Let me assure the member that I have discussed those issues with him and, at his request, he is transferring some of his people who usually do other duties across into his team for mediation. That is underway.

There is also the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, who is waiting patiently here to assist us further if you need anything else and, of course, Treasury, who I have referred to.

Ms COOK: To clarify, you have not had any of the peak body groups represented or people with lived experience in the past week as the bill has been produced? There has been no consultation with any of those people regarding any of the components of the bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the member will find that many of those have been consulted, but not by me. Even the Small Business Commissioner—is he here? It does not look like he is—Mr Chapman, has convened industry groups, small businesses, those types of people who obviously have very lived experience of people who are facing eviction.

Ms COOK: Sorry, I think you have misunderstood me, Attorney—

The CHAIR: Member for Hurtle Vale, are you seeking clarification?

Ms COOK: Yes, I am seeking clarification. I am specifically referring to the rental component for residential properties, and I am talking about people with lived experience of rental and financial stress as well as other people who advocate in the sector, such as Shelter SA, SACOSS, any of those people. Have you consulted with them in the bill's construction to measure any unintended consequences?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, but I have had a number of conversations with Justice Judy Hughes, the president of SACAT. As you know, that is the body that has the Residential Tenancies Act responsibility to manage tenancies in the residential sector. She has been very mindful of the circumstances there; she is the one who has to deal with them. I am also advised that there has been a representation from Shelter SA, and someone from my department has spoken to REISA.

Ms COOK: I am not sure which question this is. Is this No. 2 because I have only had clarifications?

The CHAIR: You have had 2½. I am calling this No. 3.

Ms COOK: Has the government sought any public health advice in relation to any enhanced COVID-19 risk for any person who might be evicted from a property outside of the rules that are being put in place to stop evictions?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I understand the question. Certainly, the government is getting a lot of advice in relation to health matters and accommodation. In fact, if I were to give you an example, and I hope this helps, Judge Hughes reported that there was a case that came before her where there had already been an order for eviction—and I assume that was by the court—and the police officer, who was involved in relation to the eviction in a general way, was cognisant of the direction that had been issued in relation to the occupant needing to be in isolation and, accordingly, had declined to in some way enforce the terms of the order.

So these types of things are already out there. They are lived, real things happening. It was a classic example of the tension between the need to lawfully enforce failures to pay rent and the need to deal with the restrictions around social isolation and the like for the COVID-19 directions. The third factor is that we now have this huge level of unemployment with the financial consequences.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna—who we now know did have a flu shot in 2004, or thereabouts. Was that the year?

Mr PICTON: I think I would need to provide a personal explanation, Chair. This is 14 years ago. The Deputy Premier is obsessed with the timing of my flu shot. I am very regular now in terms of getting my flu shot. I have a more up-to-date question: in relation to the government's response, who has undertaken the modelling for the state government in terms of the modelling of COVID-19 cases and the responses that the government could take, and its impact upon cases in South Australia?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have no idea who has undertaken that. I am assuming that is in relation to the Department for Health modelling for the purposes of questions that were raised with the Premier today?

Mr PICTON: One would hope that is the path.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not understand the detail of the question. I do not think it is relevant to anything here. However, I think that the Premier did indicate to you that firstly there was modelling done for the national body. It had been released, and further modelling was now being looked at for consideration at the national level and he expected that would be released. I have not seen it, nor do I know the name of the author.

Mr ODENWALDER: My question is in clarification of an earlier question by the member for Hurtle Vale. You said that Shelter SA had made a contribution, a submission of some sort to your office, regarding some of the measures here. Can you give us an indication of what they said in their submission and what your response or the response of your office was to their concerns?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I cannot.

Mr ODENWALDER: I do not understand, sorry?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You asked me whether I could give you an indication of what is in them? I cannot give you that. It did not come to my office. I did not say that. It would have been received, apparently, with the department. I have not seen it so I cannot tell you, no.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

Ms BEDFORD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bedford–1]—

Page 4, line 17 [clause 6(1)(b)]—Before 'must' insert 'subject to subsection (2a),'

This is the first of six amendments. I indicate that this amendment is linked with the next amendment, so amendments 1 and 2 are contingent. In essence, what this means is that if the government believes the emergency provisions in this bill require extension beyond six months, this parliament will have to reauthorise that by further legislation. This is in addition to the other aspects of the bill that make it clear that powers must not continue beyond the extent of the emergency declarations under the Emergency Management Act.

This means that if the emergency is shorter than six months the government can terminate the emergency powers once the emergency is lifted. That is already provided for in the bill. On the other hand, if the emergency lasts longer than six months, the government would need to return to parliament for reauthorisation of these powers. The powers conferred by the bill are highly extraordinary. They should not be available on an indefinite basis, and it is appropriate they be reviewed in six months' time if there is a need for them to be extended.

We on the crossbench do not want to stand in the way of these extraordinary measures, but we are concerned to ensure there is a time limit on these powers that represent a major incursion on civil liberties. The question of any sustained need for ongoing intrusion on civil liberties lies in the hands of this parliament, the principal democratic assembly of this state. As I said, amendment No. 2 is consequential and therefore I commend both amendments to the committee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the member for Florey's amendments to give effect to a hard time limit, if I can put it like that, rather than the way in which the bill is currently presented, where there is discretion for the government and discretion for the minister to determine when these provisions in the bill will cease to have effect. I think it gives far greater comfort not only to the parliament but presumably also to the broader public that these extraordinary measures will not continue on or are unable to continue on for an infinite period or a period beyond which they are strictly required. I think it would be a welcome demonstration of good faith for the government to support the member for Florey's amendments in this regard.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I indicate that the government opposes the proposal. As indicated earlier, the government had considered in fact making all of these initiatives expiable after six months, which is the tenor of what is being proposed here, but felt that there would be an objection by the parliament on the basis of, 'What if the declaration of emergency only lasts three months? Why would we need six months?' We therefore drafted and presented it on the basis that there would be this provision, that it would conclude essentially at such time as the police commissioner, as the Coordinator, felt there was no justification for it continuing to be a declared emergency. That is why we proposed it in the current bill.

As indicated, I foreshadowed a proposal to suggest that it still includes a six-month clause to enable us to have a six-month cut-off in the circumstances, as is proposed, even if the time is earlier. By the declaration, it would still go to the six months. But if the declaration period went for seven months, that would be the latter, and that is the foreshadowed amendment. In the event that the member's motion fails—it may not, of course; it may well pass—I foreshadow that I have 28(4) as a tabled amendment.

Ms BEDFORD: My understanding, if I look at your amendment, which is No. 4 standing in your name, you have the words 'whichever is the later'. Having listened to what you are saying, you mean 'later' and not 'earlier'. That is where we do not understand what you are doing because we do not accept that is the tenor of it.

The CHAIR: Attorney, before you begin, member for Florey, I point out that we are discussing your amendment at this stage.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I realise that, Mr Chairman. With respect, if the member was satisfied with my foreshadowed amendment, she may withdraw; on the other hand, she may wish to insist. This essentially would mean that, in the event that the declaration period lasted three months, the terms of these orders would still go to six months, which is consistent with the member for Florey's amendment. If, however, the declaration period went for seven months, then these new laws would expire at the end of the seven months, so there would not be an automatic six-month trigger to come back to parliament. That is what this amendment does.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It certainly would give greater comfort to the opposition should the proposition put forward by the member for Florey be adopted rather than what has been put forward by the Attorney, and the reason is simple: the way in which the Attorney has foreshadowed her amendment is that the earliest it could expire could be six months or it could be at any point later than six months. That is precisely the opposite of the desire that both the opposition and the member for Florey have expressed. We would like a hard deadline of no more than six months from the bill's commencement. I think that is entirely reasonable.

In that regard, the proposition that was foreshadowed by the Attorney really does little to the effect of the bill, as it is unamended, which also has the capacity to enable these legislative changes to run on ad infinitum, without limit, until the minister at some point makes a determination that they should end. In my view and in the opposition's view, that is unacceptable. We should have a hard deadline of six months. If it proves to be three months, well, terrific. However, it should not be an absolute bare minimum of six months or at any point after that period, which is what the Attorney is foreshadowing.

So I reiterate my support for the member for Florey's amendment. I think it gives far greater comfort, given the extraordinary and unprecedented powers that are being asked of this parliament by the government.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 13

Noes 13

Majority 0

AYES
Bedford, F.E. (teller) Bell, T.S. Bettison, Z.L.
Brown, M.E. Close, S.E. Cook, N.F.
Hildyard, K.A. Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P.
Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A.
Picton, C.J.
NOES
Chapman, V.A. (teller) Cregan, D. Gardner, J.A.W.
Knoll, S.K. Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G.
Sanderson, R. Speirs, D.J. Tarzia, V.A.
Teague, J.B. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J.
Wingard, C.L.
PAIRS
Bignell, L.W.K. Harvey, R.M. Boyer, B.I.
Ellis, F.J. Brock, G.G. Basham, D.K.B.
Duluk, S. Cowdrey, M.J. Gee, J.P.
Luethen, P. Hughes, E.J. Marshall, S.S.
Michaels, A. Patterson, S.J.R. Stinson, J.M.
McBride, N. Szakacs, J.K. Murray, S.
Wortley, D. Power, C.

The CHAIR: There being 13 ayes and 13 noes, the vote is tied. I give my casting vote to the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think members of the committee are aware of the previous debate, so I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–3]—

Page 4, lines 24 to 27 [clause 6(2)] —Delete subclause (2) and substitute:

(2) The day fixed by the Minister for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) must be—

(a) the day on which all relevant declarations relating to the outbreak of the human disease named COVID-19 within South Australia have ceased (provided that the Minister is satisfied that there is no present intention to make a further such declaration); or

(b) the day falling 6 months after the commencement of this section,

whichever is the later.

I have already covered this in the previous consideration.

Mr PICTON: Basically, we have had a proposal from the member for Florey that there should be more parliamentary scrutiny and, effectively, a sunset clause so that if the measures and the emergency have not expired by six months, then they should expire and parliament should be brought back to re-endorse those measures. Obviously, it has not gone through.

The Attorney is now seeking to do the reverse of that, which is to say, as I read it—and I seek her clarification—that even if the measures have expired they would still be in place for six months; is that effectively what the Attorney is doing now? Why, therefore, is the Attorney proposing to have a worse situation than her original bill that she proposed to the parliament, in that there is less scrutiny and this would be in place for longer than would actually be necessary?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is the government's position that it is important that, during the period of the declaration, these rules apply. The previous position had been that we have it at six months, acknowledging that a period of declaration of emergency may be shorter. We accede to the desire to have a six-month period on the basis that, should the declaration go past that time, that would continue.

Notwithstanding what the member for Lee has previously advised the parliament, it is not a discretion of a minister to decide when the declarations finish. When the declarations are finished, which is a matter in the hands of the Coordinator, it will cease. They are the terms of this, so it is not a question of it just going on forever. It is a minimum of six months, or such time as the declarations cease that go past that, but they are automatic and they are not discretionary. I hope that reassures the member for Florey, even if it does not accede to the others. I put the amendment.

Mr PICTON: Luckily, the Attorney does not get to put the amendment until we have had the opportunity to scrutinise it. What does the Attorney believe is the necessary requirement? None of us know when this emergency may be over and when either the State Coordinator or the Chief Public Health Officer shall determine that this emergency is over. Hypothetically, which is necessary to think about for the purposes of this, say that that emergency is over in four months. Why is the Attorney now saying that these provisions should extend for six months if it was over in four months? What does the Attorney believe would be necessary, and what would be the rationale, for these emergency measures to be in place for those extra two months, rather than the original bill that she presented to the parliament this morning?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In answer to the first question, that is a matter for the State Coordinator—that is, the police commissioner—to determine the factors that he takes into account in seeking the declaration to be made under the act. In relation to the second matter, because clearly the parliament was at one in saying, 'You can have it up to six months, even if it is under the proposal; that is the cut-off time,' we have taken it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It really is the most remarkable turn of events that we have witnessed here, because the Attorney has managed to take a genuine desire from the member for Florey, echoed by the opposition, to have, as the member for Kaurna says, a sunset clause, or as I referred to earlier as a hard deadline, for these powers of no more than six months and turn it into the bare minimum rather than the absolute maximum. I think that can be referred to as the big Winston Churchill salute to those of us sitting on this side of the chamber.

It is remarkable because it does not have the effect of limiting the application of these measures in the bill. In fact, what it does enable is for these provisions to continue. I understand what the Attorney is saying, in that she says that all of this hinges on whether the police commissioner, who is the State Coordinator, deems that his declarations no longer need to be in force and there is no discretion for the minister. There is a discretion for the minister. There is a discretion for the minister in that same part of that same clause, which states:

The day fixed by the Minister for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) must be the day on which all relevant declarations relating to the outbreak of the human disease named COVID-19 within South Australia have ceased...

In that respect, she is correct, but it does not end there. It continues:

…(provided that the Minister is satisfied that there is no present intention to make a further such declaration).

So it does not end there. The whole beef that we have with the operation of this act is that it is discretionary for the government in those circumstances to say, 'We believe that maybe a further declaration may be required.' It is not for anyone else's belief; it is the minister's belief. The minister, as part of cabinet forming this government, may make a decision to continue the application of these measures, and that is why we take umbrage with the current bill having no sunset clause or fixed limitation and that is why we take even greater umbrage at what the Attorney is now putting in the form of an amendment that there be a bare minimum period of six months.

We all hope that COVID-19 is similar to the aliens from War of the Worlds and that suddenly we are going to wake up one day and they will all fall down because they do not like the conditions any more. I think we can all be confident that is not going to be the case, but it may be the case, and at that point it may need to be less than six months, well under six months preferably.

If that does not occur, then we should have a hard deadline, a sunset clause, of six months. I do not know why the government is now basically rubbing the member for Florey's and the opposition's nose in it by making six months the bare minimum rather than the absolute maximum. So I indicate that we certainly will not be supporting the Attorney's amendment because all it does is prolong the application of these legislative changes contained in this bill for a minimum period up to no maximum. That is not acceptable.

Ms BEDFORD: This is exceptional. I foreshadow that I am going to move an amendment to the Attorney's amendment to replace the word 'later' with the word 'earlier'.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Ms Bedford: It doesn't matter. This is not the tenor we had our meeting this morning.

The CHAIR: Member for Florey, could you stand up when you are speaking, please? From what I understand, you are moving—

Ms BEDFORD: I had finished speaking, sir. I am sorry if I had not been succinct enough. I am going foreshadow that I will be proposing an amendment to change the last word in the amendment standing in the name of the Attorney-General from 'later' to 'earlier'.

The CHAIR: You would like to move an amendment to the amendment.

Ms BEDFORD: That is correct, sir.

The CHAIR: Could we have that in writing, please, member for Florey?

Ms BEDFORD: There it is in writing—perfect. I move:

Remove the word 'later' and replace with 'earlier'.

Mr PICTON: I will second it.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to agree to it so that we can just get on with it, because it is just a waste of time.

Mr PICTON: Do you agree to it?

An honourable member: It is not a waste of time.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We will agree to it just to get on with it. I am happy to do it.

Ms BEDFORD: If we had understood each other this morning, we would not be doing this now.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We might as well go back to the original bill, but if you want to do it I am happy to second it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, this is better than the original bill.

Ms BEDFORD: You are happy to second it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Go back to the original bill?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, this is better than the original bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Okay, thank you. It has been seconded, so let's get on with it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The member for Florey's amendment to your amendment is better than the original bill.

Ms BEDFORD: We are happy to accept that, if you are happy, then we can move on.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is right. That is what I am saying.

The CHAIR: The member for Kaurna is wishing to speak to the amendment to the amendment.

Mr PICTON: Correct. This amendment to the amendment has the support of the opposition. This is a very reasonable request that ensures that there is parliamentary oversight of this matter and not in place longer than they actually need to be.

The CHAIR: Attorney, do you wish to contribute to this part of the debate?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will place on the record that, as I indicated earlier, we will agree to it.

Amendment carried; amendment as amended carried.

Ms COOK: In terms of the end of this, which has now clearly changed or may change—at some point there will be an end, irrespective of how this goes through. In reference to people who have had conditions applied to them under the act in respect of the paying of rent, be it a commercial, residential, SRF or residential park tenant, at the end date of this particular bill, if they have had these rules applied and have had waiver of rent but have accrued debt because of this, do they then still have this debt and immediate effect of hardship after the finishing of this bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There are two elements here. One is this whole regime gives protection and relief from eviction and increase. There is a net debt, at the end of the day. There still has to be a threshold to establish that that debt is something they need to have relief from and that has to have a hardship threshold. In dispute, if it is not resolved, there can be SACAT determination of that.

What is missing from the whole package here is who, of the taxpayers, state government, federal government or banks, is going to meet that. These are all the things that have to be sorted out at the national level—whether there are some conditions under which there is an eligibility for any of the parties to get relief from that pool of money. The issue about who of the taxpayers and who in the industry are going to be paying for that shortfall once those thresholds have been met is still being nutted out nationally.

Clause as amended passed.

New clause 6A.

Ms BEDFORD: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Bedford–1]—

Page 4, after line 35—After clause 6 insert:

6A—Power to suspend regulations

(1) The Legislative Review Committee may, by notice in writing given to—

(a) the Minister; and

(b) each of the Presiding Officers of the Committee's appointing Houses,

suspend the operation of any regulation made under this Act for a period commencing on the day on which the notice is given to the Minister and ending—

(c) at the end of the next parliamentary sitting day; or

(d) if, on the next parliamentary sitting day, a notice of motion is given in either House of Parliament for a resolution disallowing the regulation—when the House resolves to disallow the regulation or when the motion is defeated.

(2) A regulation that is suspended under this section has no force or effect during the period of the suspension.

(3) To avoid doubt, if a period of suspension ends by operation of subsection (1)(c) or when a motion of disallowance is defeated, the regulation comes back into operation at the time at which the period of suspension ends.

(4) The Minister must ensure that the following are published in the Gazette forthwith:

(a) a notice given to the Minister under subsection (1)(a);

(b) notice of the cessation of a suspension by operation of subsection (1)(c);

(c) notice of any disallowance or defeat of a motion under subsection (1)(d).

(5) In this section—

parliamentary sitting day means a day on which both Houses of Parliament are sitting.

This amendment permits the Legislative Review Committee to suspend any emergency regulations made under this bill during the emergency period. This recognises parliament may not sit often enough during this emergency.

While we applaud the government's intention to keep parliament sitting in a limited capacity, it is possible we will need to shut down the parliament at some stage in this quickly changing environment. Indeed, the national cabinet has recommended all parliaments adjourn for six months, although here in South Australia the state government has decided not to do so at this stage—a decision that we on the crossbench welcome.

Suspension of a regulation under this amendment would only be until the next sitting day of the parliament, allowing a motion of disallowance to be moved. If such a motion were to be moved, the suspension continues until that motion is determined. If not, the suspension expires at the end of the sitting day. This is a simple measure to make sure scrutiny of regulations can be maintained as we move through this extraordinary pandemic crisis. I commend the amendment to the house.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I indicate that the government does not agree to this for the reasons I have outlined. To be absolutely clear, this would give the Legislative Review Committee, which I would suggest to the parliament does not have the responsibility to suspend a regulation, whole new powers to do that. That is a matter for the parliament and it has its appropriate procedures to follow in the event that they wish to challenge the continuation of a regulation. For those reasons, this is not agreed to.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I indicate the opposition's support for this amendment, unusual though it might be in the context of how regulations are usually disallowed. Given that we are in uncharted waters, so to speak, and may be further away from normal in the coming weeks or months if restrictions on the community and in turn us become more severe, there should be a mechanism if there are regulations in operation that are not allowing or assisting the community weather the impacts of the coronavirus as well as possible.

There should be some mechanism that would enable the parliament to make its view known about the operation of regulations and whether they should be suspended. I think the Legislative Review Committee is equally composed of members of the government and members of minor parties and the opposition. If the government wanted to ensure that the Legislative Review Committee did not do something unhelpful or untoward, it would not be unreasonable to make it known in that format. I do not think this is necessarily unreasonable.

I did take heart from the Attorney's closing comments on the bill that it is the government's intention to maintain parliamentary sittings. I think that is a positive. I think having the parliamentary sitting weeks continue as scheduled and ensuring that in each week we have three question times, for example, is a good thing. If, for example, declarations were made by the State Coordinator (the police commissioner) which mean that, in effect, it would be impossible for the parliament to sit, then having some sort of safety valve like this would be appropriate. For those reasons, we indicate our support for the member for Florey's amendment.

Mr TEAGUE: Having heard the member for Florey's preamble in relation to the amendment, it sounded like there was a proviso or threshold around parliament being shut down. I also note the contributions of the Attorney and the member for Lee. Given that it is not the position—the proviso might not have been met—the amendment might be moved on another occasion in those circumstances?

Ms BEDFORD: Can I respond to that?

The CHAIR: Yes, absolutely. The member for Florey has the call.

Ms BEDFORD: I am quite happy for this to go through on the voices rather than a division, but it is an important thing. We do not know what is going to happen tomorrow, member for Heysen, so I do not know what is going to happen in the future. There is really no point in agreeing to something I do not know about.

If the point is about parliamentary scrutiny, as long as parliament is sitting clearly there is no issue, but we do not know what is going to happen. While we are dealing with hypotheticals—and I appreciate that all members are accepting of that—as it stands, that is what I am putting to the house. I am quite happy for it to go through on the voices, whichever way it goes.

Mr TEAGUE: I thank the member for Florey for her response. My understanding is that, as presently advised, there is no shutdown. I am happy to go on the record to say that I am certainly in favour of parliament continuing to sit insofar as that is able to continue to happen. As presently advised, that is the situation.

Perhaps it might also be opportune to put on the record that, as a member of the Legislative Review Committee, I indicate that the Legislative Review Committee, for example, is meeting in the ordinary way tomorrow, as it normally does at 9.30 on a sitting Wednesday. I am pleased to report to the house that it is so far so orderly, for want of a better description.

While I am on my feet, I will also make the observation—and I am sure this is not lost on the member for Florey—that this amendment would alter the ordinary work of the Legislative Review Committee in a sufficiently fundamental way. It might be a convenient body to repose these executive powers in, but it certainly is not the ordinary work of the Legislative Review Committee when it goes about consideration of a disallowance, for example, to consider the merits. This amendment would appear to presuppose that the Legislative Review Committee would somehow temporarily be placed in both an executive capacity and in the role of some sort of tribunal on merits review.

Ms BEDFORD: The member for Heysen's remarks are of course pertinent to all of this, but other people are being given extraordinary powers and asked to do extraordinary things, and I think the extraordinary body of the Legislative Review Committee would be up to any sort of decision we would need to have made, which is not necessarily to puff you up, sir, but to make sure that we have oversight of these things with an elected group of members rather than appointed people, however august and esteemed they may be.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Indeed, it is the presence of the member for Heysen and the member for Kavel that I think provides sufficient comfort to us all. They are the protectors of the parliament's interests when it comes to this matter.

Ms Bedford interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That's right. I think likely there is no other option. I made it clear in my earlier remarks that the Economic and Finance Committee had already made the decision to suspend meetings unless we had something required of us—for example, emergency services levy determinations, which are coming—and the Public Works Committee is having its meetings altered here.

We could put it to those august bodies, like the Joint Parliamentary Service Committee meeting, Chair, but that would entitle us for the first time having an understanding of what goes on at those committee meetings, and we would not want to start that uncomfortable precedent. I think that committee, with the member for Heysen and his colleagues on that committee, is the best place for this sort of power to be wielded and executed, and he has my fulsome support to take on these hefty but important responsibilities.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I finally indicate that, whilst it is the government's position that this is not a body which should have the responsibility for the protection that I think the member for Florey is seeking here, I think that the member for Florey can take some comfort in two things: one is the clear indication that we are going to continue to operate as a parliament; and, secondly, the Legislative Review Committee with its worthy contributors in it—of course, there are two representatives, and one is the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos. The Chair is the Hon. Dennis Hood, and from memory the member for Ramsay is also on it.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Cheltenham.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No? My note is Hood, Teague, Cregan, Bettison, Pnevmatikos and Bonaros, so I do not think that the member for Cheltenham is on it at all. Nevertheless, they are all worthy members of the parliament, and I just want to say that I think you have had an indication that it is going to continue to do its work as best it can undertake, and that is important work. I hope, in those circumstances, that the member would consider withdrawing the amendment, but if not let us just put it to the vote.

The CHAIR: That debate was really undertaken in quite conversational tones, I thought, but, that said, I sense an amount of goodwill to get this bill through in the best form we can.

New clause negatived.

The CHAIR: So that everybody knows what is going on we do have amendments standing in the name of the Attorney-General, and we are running off copies for the opposition to have a look at. While that is occurring, we will let the debate begin on clause 7.

Clause 7.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As a result of the passage of the member for Florey's amendment to the amendment in clause 6, which relates to the six months or end of declaration, whichever is the earlier, there are consequential amendments necessary in clause 7, and I indicate to the committee that clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10 will all need to be amended consequential to that. The first one is in clause 7, which deletes paragraph (b) and substitutes a new paragraph (b), that is, 'ending on the day on which this section expires under section 6'. I indicate it is purely procedural as a consequence of the member for Florey's amendment. Obviously, I am happy to answer any questions on clause 7, but I indicate that that is the position.

The CHAIR: To be fair, though, we really need to see copies of the amendment to give to other members. They are coming in now, and the member for Lee has a question.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: With regard to the arbitration of disputes—and I appreciate that the government has come up with a mechanism to involve the Small Business Commissioner and, failing acceptance by both parties of his determination, the parties then have recourse to the Magistrates Court—the Attorney made some comments in her closing remarks about SACAT and her consultations with Judy Hughes as the Presiding Member of SACAT. Could the Attorney explain the rationale for making the forum for recourse the Magistrates Court rather than SACAT?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In essence, these are disputes that are already dealt with in the Magistrates Court and it has its own mediation team, for example, employed at the Magistrates Court. I am meeting this week with Judge Hribal, who is the head of the Magistrates Court, to discuss a number of matters, including the excellent work she has done in trying to deal with social distancing obligations in the management of her court. I think that has been fantastic.

The Governor has now signed the approval for the appointment of judicial registrars for her court because she is looking to have some extra support in her court to deal with commercial matters. So she will be pleased, especially if she does receive some extra work arising out of this model of protection and the review process. They do it now. Currently, SACAT only has jurisdiction relating to residential tenancies. It may be something down the track that is considered.

There is still a tranche of transferred jurisdictions under consideration for legislative transfer but, as you might know, having been a member of the government that established SACAT, there was a proposed staged transfer of jurisdictions to enable the new tribunal to, firstly, get on its feet and, secondly, relocate from Collinswood a large cohort of its guardianship work, change premises and then to progressively accept jurisdiction. We are not attempting in this bill to transfer jurisdictions to SACAT. It is consistent with what already occurs in the resolution of disputes in this area.

The CHAIR: Before we go any further on this, now that we have copies of the amendment distributed to members I am going to ask the Attorney to move amendment No. 3 standing in her name.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 3 [AG–4]—

Page 8, lines 11 to 15 [clause 7(16), definition of prescribed period, (b)]—Delete paragraph (b) and substitute:

(b) ending on the day on which this section expires under section 6;

It is consequential to the matters that have been passed as an amended amendment to clause 6.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will just check that I am reading from the correct copy of the Attorney's bill because that has inadvertently caught us out before.

The CHAIR: This is clause 7, and we have just circulated copies of amendment No. 3 standing in the Attorney's name, which will amend clause 7. I am happy to give you time, member for Lee. They have only just gone around.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: While I am coming to grips with the amendments, having only just sighted them, can I ask the Attorney a couple of questions about clause 7. Further to my first question about the availability of the Magistrates Court as recourse, will tenants and landlords finding themselves still in dispute be required to pay the normal range of court fees, etc., that apply for having matters heard or settled before the Magistrates Court?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is nothing in this bill to suspend those. There is a discretion in the Magistrates Court as to whether they apply them, although I am not sure how that will fit with the new Supreme Court rules that have been distributed by the Chief Justice. We can inquire into that and find out whether that occurs. They have a discretion in relation to the financial means of the parties. For example, if it was a rich tenant against Mr and Mrs South Australia, who might be a retired pensioner landlord couple, and the rich tenant is the applicant, he or she may not get favour of dispensation. If there is anything different from that, I will let you know.

Mr PICTON: Can the Attorney clarify whether there any government supports available for landlords in terms of financial support?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I could not answer that off the top of my head. There are announcements for business support that have been made by the government; some of those relate to land tax and obligations to pay. I do not have the detail here. If you can be a little bit more specific on that, I am happy to get some response or, alternatively, arrange a briefing for you in relation to those matters.

Mr PICTON: As there are very senior Treasury officials here, maybe we can get some notes. Essentially, as I understand this—and I am not an expert in this area—a lot of the idea is to try to push these things out to not have these disputes raised now. A lot of that impact would then be on the property owners in terms of their obligations for finance that they may have with banks, etc., in terms of not being able to pay those bills.

In a lot of other areas of commerce and the economy, we have seen the government step in to assist people who are facing financial difficulties because of the pandemic. Is this an area where we are saying we want landlords to try to sort this out themselves, or are there any programs, any assistance, any grants that those businesses and those owners can access to assist them through that process?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not think I can give you the detailed answer to that. Can I just put one thing on the record that I think is important to say: there are people who are hurt badly, financially, through this pandemic—no question about that—and the varying degrees of that are not easily remedied by just one grant, one program or one piece of relief. We do need to target it. That is why there is a threshold built into this model of protection. In other words, it is not just for anybody not to pay their rent during a declaration period and then think, 'You beauty. I don't have to pay my rent.'

By the same token, I think it is fair to say that landlords and tenants who get on with each other need each other. The landlord needs the tenant because they need the income stream and the tenant needs the property, in this case for commercial purposes. So I am hopeful that parties hit with this pandemic are able to sit down and have some good discussions about how they might get through it and whether there is a partial payment of rent or allowances during the time.

If they cannot or they need some assistance, the Small Business Commissioner is there. Of course, the parties can appoint their own mediators or advisers. There are plenty of others out there in the general market who I am sure would be happy to have the work. At the end of this period, certainly the government is hopeful, and I think there is a reasonable expectation, that if you have been a good and decent tenant and you have been an understanding landlord there will be a continued relationship if the occupied business is going to prevail and continue. Landlords need tenants and tenants need landlords.

A respectful process that allows a resolution of how the interim arrangement works is preferable. That is why there are repeated messages from the government, the Small Business Commissioner and even the Commissioner for Business Services, who is here today and who is having to deal with myriads of different people in stress at the moment, particularly in areas for which he is responsible for the licensing, to encourage people to have a discussion about these commercial arrangements under clause 7 and, indeed, residential arrangements. We hope that will be taken up, that it will be successful and that it will be the foundation of an ongoing post COVID-19 relationship.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: On page 6, clause 7(12) deals with a lessee suffering financial hardship as a result of COVID-19 and a lessor has already commenced but not yet completed or finalised. Is there a date that the government has in mind for the application of this particular part of clause 7?

For example, if a tenant had for whatever reason been in arrears on their rent perhaps in the latter part of 2019, before we were all concerned about COVID-19, and the landlord had finally exhausted their patience and initiated relevant proceedings to make that good, if I can put it so blithely, is there a date that the government has in mind when this part of the clause is to operate?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. I would invite the member to view subclause (14), which sets out the relevant period. That is what applies for the purposes of clause 12, which you are referring to, and also clause 13, beginning on the day on which this section commences and ending on the day on which the act is assented to by the Governor.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is 30 March, I think, is it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Commencing 30 March, which is the day after the Prime Minister's announcement. Perhaps while I am on my feet—for the benefit of the member for Kaurna because I am feeling particularly generous towards him today—as I have the geniuses from the Treasury office here, they have refreshed my memory of exactly what those land tax announcements were a week ago; that is, firstly, to defer the remaining land tax payments for six months and, secondly, to increase transitional relief in 2020-21 as part of the land tax reforms, increased relief for those who would otherwise have had an increase in land tax.

Mr PICTON: This section refers a number of times to things 'as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic'. Does that mean that any loss or any difficulty in terms of paying rent is presumed to have been connected with the COVID-19 pandemic, or would a lessee have to demonstrate through some means that there is a connection between difficulty to pay and the pandemic?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The latter.

Mr PICTON: How would that happen? What is the evidence that somebody would have to demonstrate that there is a connection between the pandemic and difficulty in terms of payment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is not prescribed in the bill as to what they have to be. Some of them would be obvious: 'I have lost my job,' 'I have been instructed to close,' 'I run my restaurant and I'm not allowed to sell alcohol or food anymore.' There would have to be a link to the COVID-19 circumstance. Most likely, the obvious ones will be directions that have been issued by the Coordinator that have a direct impact on the capacity for that person to either earn an income or be employed. They are the obvious ones.

There will be some less obvious ones; that is, 'I have had to remain in isolation and I can't undertake duties, therefore I can't be paid,' 'I am running my own business,' that type of situation. I am just giving you examples here. The bottom line is that if you cannot establish for the purposes of your negotiation in relation to this matter—which would predetermine any court assessment relying on those and satisfying the other party—that it is COVID-19 related, then it will be adjudicated firstly by mediated availability through the Small Business Commissioner and, if not resolved at that point, determined by assessment of the court. That is the process.

Ms COOK: This is the first part of the bill that refers to the topic of hardship. There is no clear definition of hardship. This relates to the question just asked as well. I understand that there is a reference in clause 17 that hardship will be defined by regulation. This goes for hardship as discussed in all the tenancy sections of this bill. For residential, SRFs and a whole range we talk about hardship.

Is this where the Attorney feels that it will be defined through regulation, and how will the consultation occur in order to seek that definition? You have just spoken about how it will be arbitrated, but that would not be relevant for a residential tenant, for example. There are differences throughout the bill in how people would have to prove that they are under hardship.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It may be that the use of regulations may help it be more prescriptive as to the sorts of things that would be considered. Jumping ahead to residential tenants to whom you are referring, they too need to be able to establish that their incapacity to meet their rent is a result of a circumstance that has been imposed on them, which they are a victim of by virtue of what has happened during this period.

As I think I have said before several times, there is a threshold. This is not a situation where during this period you can just say, 'Well, I can't be bothered playing paying my rent now; I'll be able to get away with this. Scott Morrison said we won't get evicted, so I just won't be paying' and think you can get away with it. The process for residential is slightly different. That is a matter where, if the parties do not resolve it, it goes through SACAT. I am sure the member is quite aware they also have a comprehensive process where they have mediation support, usually by commissioners at SACAT, to assist in the processing of those matters.

In essence, if you cannot reach agreement, bearing in mind that there is an obligation to actually justify that it is COVID-19 related, then there is a process of adjudication which can be implemented if it cannot be resolved.

Ms COOK: In terms of people who are experiencing financial hardship under this circumstance and, moving forward, any others, do you think having to prove hardship could create situations like we have seen interstate where landlords are asking for leave balances and superannuation balances and other personal information in order to show their full financial position to prove their hardship, moving forward?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I suppose that is a question that is a little bit general but, just having gone through the experience of the bushfires, particularly in the Adelaide Hills and Kangaroo Island regions, people who are hurt and stressed find it very difficult to even fill out a form to try to get a grant. It is not an easy time. So as much as possible, we want to try to help people who are in distress to be able to access relief or support as best we can. I know that I am putting forward what I hope is general reassurance here, but it is different for different parties.

It is not unreasonable, though, that if you have lost your job and you are a tenant that you provide some evidence of termination to your landlord to start those negotiations. 'I work for the local restaurant; it has closed down; I haven't been able to secure any other employment. I've applied for—' what is it called now? JobSeeker? Instead of unemployment benefits?

An honourable member: JobKeeper.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: JobKeeper. It may not be JobKeeper; it may be JobSeeker if you are unemployed. 'Here is my evidence. I'm getting the old Centrelink payment,' whichever one they are eligible for 'so I can't pay my rent', or, 'I can't pay all my rent, but I'm happy to pay 25 per cent, because that's really all I can afford on the income I've got.'

That is what we would expect. But I would have no doubt that a whole lot of overlaps go with that, including the distress of the applicant who may find it very difficult to navigate those things. We have them in our electorates already, and we need to be mindful of it. We are just trying to set up the legislative structure here to protect them, but there is certainly detail still to be worked through.

Ms COOK: In the event that a tenant under these circumstances escapes penalty under the act as a result of the protections of the bill, are there any scenarios in which the tenant could then face a penalty after the bill or if the landlord seeks to recoup costs following this?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am assuming that the member is referring to residents under clause 8. I am happy to answer the question, but we are still on commercial at the minute.

Ms COOK: I think it can happen under any of them. I am asking it at clause 7.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: So that is in relation to a commercial tenancy—a commercial lease?

Ms COOK: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, they are some of the issues we are trying to resolve, but 'prescribed action' in clause 7 is defined as:

(a) eviction of the lessee from premises the subject of the commercial lease;

(b) exercising a right of re-entry to premises the subject of the commercial lease;

(c) recovery of land;

(d) distraint of goods;

(e) forfeiture;

(f) damages;

(g) requiring a payment of interest on unpaid rent—

That is very clear—

(h) recovery of the whole or part of a security bond under the commercial lease;

(i) performance of obligations by the lessee or any other person pursuant to a guarantee under the commercial lease;

(j) possession;

(k) termination of the commercial lease;

(l) any other remedy otherwise available to a lessor against a lessee at common law or under the law of this State;

So it is pretty comprehensive. Landlords need to do the right thing and we do not want these people thrown out of their business premises.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My question is unfortunately based on a hypothetical, but I do think it reflects a number of the circumstances that South Australians will find themselves in. My understanding is that the support that has been provided to small businesses to try to weather the impacts of the coronavirus particularly relates to those who have existing financing with banks and that there is more money made available to those banks so that banks can either refinance or give a breather to people who are running small businesses, for example.

There are likely to be a number of relationships between landlords and tenants, both of whom are commercial operators, either as a commercial landlord or as a commercial business operating within that premises, who for one reason or another do not have any relationship with a bank, other than perhaps having a transaction account, so they do not have a debt tied to their business or tied to the property that is being let.

In that circumstance, it is likely that there will be an obvious dispute between the tenant and the landlord where there is really little reasonable outcome that can enable both the tenant and the landlord to try to get through the next period while business conditions for the tenant, for example, are insufficient for them to keep operating and hence they are not able to pay their rents.

I am sorry to go into that long preamble, but a number of people have contacted me—constituents and others—who are worried that they may be in this situation. In this event, where they cannot reach agreement on how they are to manage the situation, the tenants and the landlords perhaps go to the Small Business Commissioner seeking some mediation or determination and still cannot find an acceptable outcome or an appropriate outcome that seeks to, as far as possible, protect the interests of both the tenant and the landlord.

Will any of the government's announced stimulus or support packages be made available to either tenants or landlords to try to assist them through that process where those federally announced measures will not suffice or will not apply to their circumstances?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In short, I cannot answer that in that general way, but I think it is fair to say that the stimulus packages, for example, that are out under the state proposals for businesses and/or NGOs—there are two community and NGO packages at the moment, which are administered under the control of the Treasurer or certainly the department by these people of course who actually deal with all the applications—are being processed now, so there will be, I do not doubt, a number of people who have obligations under commercial leases who may or may not at a later time end up in a situation where they cannot pay their rent and rely on these conditions who have already applied for support in respect of stimulus packages and/or grants and the like.

I do not know that I can answer that in any more detail. I think what you were starting to do is to identify a scenario of what consideration will be given to someone who does not actually have any debt and therefore does not get sympathy, I suppose, in the negotiations. I am seeing a nodding from the member for Lee as to whether they are going to be almost prejudiced through this process because they are not going to be seen as in need. They are not being pushed by a bank loan, so therefore they do not necessarily need to have relief.

I do not see that as the way it is working. I think it is a matter where, if you want to get relief for protection under these conditions, you need to be able to demonstrate that there is something sitting behind you that throws you into an impecunious state. That may be nothing to do with the debt level. It may be all to do with income stream, but it may be both.

The consideration of the sympathy for that situation and whether they might be eligible for this relief is really what we are talking about, as distinct from whether you can line up for a grant. That really is a separate criterion and a separate matter. I do not doubt that some of the people who end up relying on this clause 7 may well have also got other relief.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not doubt that the Deputy Premier slightly misconstruing the point I made was an appropriate reflection on how well I expressed my point, rather than her not grasping the point. It was not so much that they will not be being favoured in that determination process because they have no debt. The point I was trying to make was the way in which many businesses are believed to be able to get some relief is that, because they have some debt arrangements with the bank, the bank can go easy on them in the requirements to service that debt, and that should improve their cash flow, that should improve their capacity to survive through the coming period of the coronavirus pandemic, either as a landlord or as a tenant.

But for those who do not hold debt for whatever reason and this is merely an issue of being denied income—perhaps particularly I am thinking for the landlord here; they are not getting the weekly rent from their tenant or tenants, etc.—they do not really have anywhere else to go, unless they have other sources of funds. Putting that to one side, I guess my question was: in that event, are those individual landlords—or businesses, if they are tenants—able to apply to the government's funds for support? If so, should they be doing it individually or should they be doing it through an industry association that they may be a member of? I am happy to have that question answered later between the houses. If the government is able to answer the question, it would be of great assistance.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will take it on notice. The best I understand it, though, is that for a person who receives an income—perhaps a retired couple who have two houses, rent them out and it is their sole source of income—they may not have any debt, and good luck to them, but this is their income earner and they are suddenly deprived of it. They do not have a bank breathing down on them, but they suddenly have no money and they may then need to seek some other support, depending on the circumstances, whether they are eligible for that.

We will take that on notice. I do not know all the details of what the guidelines are under the applications under our stimulus package. I think they are pretty generous and flexible. The Treasury department are looking after that aspect, but I do not think they are really prescriptive. I am advised that generally we are encouraging people to go through an industry association, so that might be the best way to present that.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 4 [AG–4]—

Page 11, lines 21 to 25 [clause 8(13)]—Delete subclause (13)

This is consequential on the amended amendment in clause 6.

Sitting suspended from 17:59 to 19:30.

The CHAIR: Welcome back, everybody. The house is in committee. My recollection is that the Attorney-General had just moved amendment No. 4 standing in her name.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I indicated that this, again, is a consequential amendment to the amended amendment of the member for Florey on clause 6.

Amendment carried.

Ms COOK: In clause 8, what would the minister expect to be exceptional circumstances where an in-person inspection would be required to occur? Why do those circumstances then justify the increased risk of tenants, landlords and property agents contracting COVID-19 or for people on enforced isolation breaching those orders for isolation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that it is likely to cover a circumstance where someone does not have internet facilities on the premises, so it may be in those circumstances, coupled with a concern or some reasonable suspicion that there has been some damage or disorder in the property. That is the type of situation as I am advised.

Ms COOK: Thanks for that. I think that rolls nicely into my next question, where I am seeking clarification. Currently, inspections can occur without a tenant being present, but it is likely that audiovisual or electronic means would require tenants to be at the property in order to be able to hold the phone, the camera or the device to facilitate that. Given that, will the requirements for the tenant to take those steps as are necessary to enable the inspection create any difficulties if you consider essential workers and people who are required to be at work during generally scheduled inspection times?

There is not a lot of flexibility with these things, so do you perceive that there will be any issues with that, and how you would get around it? Also, you talked about the exceptional circumstance of people not having the internet or perhaps even the digital literacy, the device or the capability. What sort of thought process has gone into those types of issues?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised by the commissioner, who always gives very pragmatic and wise advice, that there is an expectation that there would be some reasonable elements on both parties to accommodate that. Inspections already occur, and I suppose to some degree that can be an inconvenience, especially if the tenant thinks, 'Well, I better tidy up,' knowing that there is going to be an inspection coming up. But, at the end of the day, obviously if they are employed at certain times then they would either work around that or, if they were doing night shift, they would have to work around sleeping arrangements. I think there would be a common-sense approach to that.

It is not as though there needs to be an intransigence on it. The fact is the landlord, when appropriate and with proper notice, is entitled to inspect, and the tenant's arrangements are to accommodate that. We are really just introducing a new medium by which it can be done, so that it is safe for both, to comply with our social distancing obligations.

Ms COOK: Will the minister clarify whether clause 8(1)(e) retains the requirement for tenants to seek landlord approval prior to having any modifications or repairs carried out to the property, or whether its effect in practice actually removes that requirement?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that it is actually not an approval process; it is more an agreement as to what the costs are going to be in relation to the repairs that are going to be undertaken. As I understand it, that does not change.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 9.

Ms COOK: In respect of clause 9, residential parks, the bill relates to factors with SACAT, given the current pandemic and some of the things that need to be taken into account. Does the minister foresee that if in fact the pandemic were to escalate, and situations and guidelines were to increase around what is open and what is not, and the closure of the tribunal should occur, there would then be a situation where the protections could not be enforced?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not see a circumstance where all courts are going to close down, unless the whole state was in shutdown for a disaster purpose. SACAT, I just want to reassure the committee and the member, is already working almost exclusively electronically. It has a lot of experience and a lot of its work is already done where at least one party is on the telephone, and has been really in all its operations. Now it is being done remotely almost exclusively in that tribunal, obviously because of COVID-19, overlapping its usual practice. I see it as one of the last of our court structures/tribunals that would be paralysed in some way by COVID-19 because it is actually, I think, at the forefront of being able to operate remotely.

Ms COOK: In respect of failure to pay rent arising from hardship caused by COVID-19, there have been calls by a number of peak bodies and spokespeople around the nation for all evictions to be stopped under any circumstances. There has been acknowledgement for some protection of owners and landlords, where wilful damage or use for criminal purpose might be an isolated event when it is acceptable to evict somebody.

These calls are based on the evidence that with homelessness and putting people on the move, there is a threat to public health and safety, and the tribunal is obligated to consider homelessness as a factor within an eviction. Was this a position with respect to other forms of eviction or serving notice on a tenant, such as for maintenance or renovation or sale? Were these other reasons for eviction or breaking of lease put to the Attorney as another reason to put on hold the evictions or end of lease for any period during the COVID crisis? Was that considered and lobbied? Did you get any feedback from any sector groups or tenants around that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is a very broad question. I think I gave an example earlier in this discussion about Justice Hughes advising of a circumstance where a tenant was to leave a property by order of the court; that is, be evicted. It related to pre-COVID-19 failings, probably in relation to rental payment but there may have been other factors.

The court had clearly taken the view that it was a matter where eviction should occur. COVID-19 circumstances were now in place; namely, there was an obligation for isolation and the like. I suppose it was a situation that on the face of it appeared to be the tenant taking advantage of the COVID-19 circumstance and being able to avoid a past obligation to make payment on rent. In a way, it was a bit lucky for him because the police officer in that case declined to exercise that based on the direction that somebody had to stay in isolation. There is paragraph (k) of this clause, which is proposed and which enables the tribunal to be able to take other appropriate circumstances into account, so I think that should cover it.

The CHAIR: The next thing for me to do, Attorney, is to ask you to move your amendment, which I think is consequential; is that right?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think we have passed the amendment, have we not?

The CHAIR: No, we have not; it was my oversight. We should have done it earlier, but we can do it now.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 5 [AG–4]

Page 11, line 37 to page 12, line 1 [clause 9(4)]—Delete subclause (4)

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 6 [AG–4]

Page 13, lines 23 to 27 [clause 10(4)]—Delete subclause (4)

Amendment carried.

Ms COOK: Many people living in supported residential facilities are already under significant hardship. They are often receiving Centrelink benefits and many other benefits to supplement income in terms of concessions. They might have a whole range of other challenges as well as potentially being on the NDIS, or unluckily maybe not on the NDIS.

During the pandemic, this position that they are in will most definitely be magnified. Many of us have discussed increasing costs of living and what the hardship increase would be just in terms of groceries. I think it would be hard for people in that position to demonstrate their increase in hardship, except for the known fact about the increased cost of living. Is that enough to satisfy the test for hardship increase?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The advice I have received is that it would be the same test. I was asked during the course of briefings why the prohibition on increases in fees and charges is not linked to financial hardship for supported residential facilities unlike other rental arrangements. I will just quickly re-read the answer here, because it may be of assistance to you—I do not know that you were present during that. Clause 10(1)(b) provides:

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

This is a slightly different scenario to residential tenancies and commercial leases, where it is only rent that is an issue. Combination costs are generally part of a broader contract involving personal care services and other matters, as well as usually being tied to commonwealth funding. Given this and the vulnerable nature of people in supported residential facilities, it was felt that a blanket ban on increases was the best approach. Residents in supported residential facilities are unlikely to have loss of income or employment, unlike commercial and residential tenants. It should be noted that paragraph (d) is also relevant in that it provides that:

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

So this is an extra precaution taking into account the vulnerability of the cohort we are talking about.

Ms COOK: Thank you for that explanation, Attorney. Under clause 10(1)(c), could you clarify whether that clause refers specifically to directions or laws that specifically name and apply to SRF residents, or does it apply generally to those the SRF resident feels they should be following? Would they be in breach letting too many people into the space, for example, in terms of the COVID parameters?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, it relates to the directions, for example, of the Coordinator, or laws that are passed, such as numbers of people in a social gathering.

Ms COOK: Given the number of SRF residents—and, as explained, they are particularly vulnerable (many live with disabilities and chronic health conditions) to contracting COVID-19—what safeguards are in place to ensure that residents are not putting other residents at risk if a facility is required to host in-person inspections in exceptional circumstances? So opening up the SRF to a number of visitors, a couple of visitors even, could be the trigger or tipping point.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In general, the proprietor would have to comply with the directions of the Coordinator just like the rest of us. I was not quite sure whether you were referring in your question to landlord inspections, or were you talking about some kind of community visitor scheme, an Ombudsman, or something of that nature?

Ms COOK: Yes, so somebody entering an SRF for the purpose of any kind of inspection of the facility, if there was perhaps a notification made, or any kind of investigation.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just going to describe them as an inspector under an oversight body. There might be any number of them, commonwealth or state, that relate to facilities, and we do not want to leave a situation where any accommodation facility, whether an aged-care home or a mental health unit, is without all the protections of the inspectorates that we have to keep an eye on the rights and protections of residents. We are not attempting to do that.

We are trying to make sure that, where possible, we have observation of all the directions in relation to inspections, but we are still likely to have to have inspections by these oversight bodies, and we need to. We are signed up to support, even under the OPCAT, which are the international obligations, and to deal with making sure that we have some kind of visiting scheme or inspectorate.

I think at the moment in South Australia just about all our agencies, whether it is health, aged care or a youth detention centre, have oversight bodies. One area not currently covered is police cells. We are looking at whether we can expand the inspectorate from the prisons to do the police cells as well, because we are signed up to these obligations for all the reasons that are obvious—you just have to read the Oakden report to know why we have them.

The CHAIR: If there are no further questions—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Just before you put the question, I might advise the committee that I have just been provided a copy of a letter from Shelter SA addressed to me. I have only just read it, but it is dated 30 March, so while it does not have a receipt date it has obviously come in in the last week. The member for Hurtle Vale asked whether I had received it, and I indicated that I personally had not but that my department had. I have just received it and read it.

I note that the letter starts with a compliment to Prime Minister Scott Morrison for his initiative, and it then goes on to suggest some ideas about how it might be expanded. I see that a copy was given to the Hon. Kyam Maher. This letter has just been brought to my attention, so I just want to place on the record that it has been received. Of course, we welcome all advice.

Clause as amended passed.

New clause 10A.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Brock–1]—

Page 13, after line 27—Insert:

10A—Provisions applying in relation to certain water and sewerage charges for sporting clubs

(1) The operation of the Water Industry Act 2012, the Local Government Act 1999 and any other Act or law prescribed by the regulations (being an Act or law relating to the supply of water, sewerage services or storm water management) is modified as follows:

(a) the Minister under the relevant Act may, by notice in the Gazette—

(i) waive an amount of prescribed costs payable by a specified sporting club, or a sporting club of a specified class (whether incurred before or after the commencement of this section); or

(ii) exempt (conditionally or unconditionally) a specified sporting club, or a sporting club of a specified class, from a specified provision of those Acts;

(b) the regulations under this Act may modify or suspend the operation of any Act or law relating to the supply of water to, the use of sewerage services by, or the management of storm water by, a specified sporting club or sporting clubs of a specified class;

(c) a term of any contract, agreement or other instrument that is inconsistent with the modifications made by this section will, to the extent of that inconsistency, be of no effect.

(2) In this section—

prescribed costs means—

(a) an amount payable for the supply of water (whether potable or otherwise); or

(b) an amount payable for the use of sewerage services; or

(c) an amount payable in relation to storm water management; or

(d) any other amount of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

sewerage services has the same meaning as in the Water Industry Act 2012.

This amendment will provide the responsible ministers with the power to waive any costs for the supply of water, sewerage services or stormwater management that a sporting club would incur, or to exempt a sporting club or a class of sporting clubs from such costs.

The purpose of this amendment is to empower the government to assist sporting clubs, which are often significant users of water and sewerage services, if suffering from hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many community sporting clubs have shut down and are unable to operate any licensed businesses they may own. These costs could be very significant.

We should not be letting significant supply charges bankrupt the sporting fabric of our communities. In my own electorate of Frome, I have been made aware of some clubs that are confronting supply and connection charges for all their utilities even though they are closed. As an example, the Port Football and Community Sporting Club in Port Pirie, in my electorate, is confronting network and associated charges of $2,335.09 on their last bill for an actual usage of the product of $1,984.85. The total charge to this club, which is closed, is $4,319.94.

This is a massive impost for a community club that is earning a much-reduced income—in actual fact, nil income—and using very little energy while closed. I recognise that this a more complex issue. I move this amendment to tackle what we immediately control: the supply of water, sewerage and stormwater services by the government. However, I would like the government to also look into how we can protect sporting clubs from similar charges for energy. While this is a privatised industry and operates on a national market, our distribution network is operated under a long-term franchise from the state. I commend the amendment to the house.

Ms HILDYARD: I rise to briefly indicate my wholehearted support for this very important amendment that has been brought to the house by the member for Frome. I want to thank him wholeheartedly for doing so. I know that he, like me and many other members in this house, has had repeated calls from sporting clubs, leagues and associations in our communities—and in my case, beyond my community as well.

This amendment accords with the request I have made in support of South Australian sporting clubs, leagues and associations directly to the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing. I am still awaiting a response to that request in relation to this and similar issues. I hope that it is considered favourably and that I receive a favourable response in due course.

This amendment will directly provide support and much-needed financial relief those clubs, leagues and associations. These organisations engage people, include them, keep them fit and healthy, and give them a great sense of belonging right across our state.

These clubs, leagues and associations in every corner of our state continue day in and day out—despite not being able to hold their usual competitions, training and gatherings—to reach out in many different ways to their members, supporters and volunteers simply to check in and see that they are doing okay, to keep in touch at this difficult time. I dearly hope that for their benefit, and to enable them to continue to do the really important work at the heart of our communities, providing care and support and making a difference in people's lives, this amendment is supported.

I also hope for their benefit that clear information soon comes to light from the government about exactly what the clubs, leagues and associations can access from the Community and Jobs Support Fund. As yet, that is not clear, and I do hope that clubs, leagues and associations can access funds that enable them to survive and thrive into the future. They are absolutely places that are and will be deeply important for the mental, physical and emotional wellbeing of South Australians in every suburb and region of our state as we go forward. Again, I wholeheartedly support the amendment and thank the member very much for bringing it to this place.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for Frome for bringing this matter to the attention of the parliament, as well as the plight of some of the associations. I think that is also echoed by the member for Reynell regarding what has occurred in relation to our sporting clubs across the state.

It was bad enough when we had the bushfires and clubs were burnt down and we had the traumas associated with that. Certainly I know that the minister has been very active, for example, and secured a very substantial payment of $1 million post the bushfire on Kangaroo Island for the Western Districts footy club. Before they have any hope of rebuilding from scratch, they will at least have some facility to be able to meet and plan and, hopefully, rebuild that community for sport, which is a multisport facility. I just use that as an example of exactly what happens when it gets crushed.

COVID-19 and the directions that have followed, including social distancing and the mass gathering rules—which is now down to a very few unless you have a big family living in your house—has really just smashed the sporting clubs, and even their capacity to have a revenue base, because their membership fees are not coming in. So you have a double hit and you have ongoing expenses.

I put this in the category of an ongoing expense that they cannot do anything about. They might need to keep watering their oval. A lot of these expenses will just continue, so I completely understand the background that sits behind this. Obviously we have only just received it, so I do not have any approval yet, but I want to assure the member, and indeed members of the committee, that the minister, in particular, is spending a lot of time trying to work through, with association representatives generally as distinct from individual clubs, the accessibility to the Community and Jobs Support Fund that the government has announced.

It is a $250 million fund and, whilst it has been announced, obviously the criteria—a little bit like the business funds I was referring to on previous clauses here today—are operated through Treasury. I do not have any Treasury officials back here now, so I cannot call on them to get the information, but I want to assure the member that, notwithstanding that I cannot accede to this request, I hear their plight, the circumstances the member has raised. Whether this is enough or whether it is the appropriate way to go we will need to come back to the member in relation to that, but the details are on Hansard. I have asked that it be sent on to the appropriate agency and we will get back to the member as soon as we can. However, I cannot support this today.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I also rise to indicate my support and, along with the member for Reynell, the opposition's support for this measure. This is one way in which sporting and community clubs can be supported in some very difficult times. The Deputy Premier is right, I think, to reflect on the extraordinary limitations that have been placed on sporting and community clubs because of the restrictions on public gatherings and also social distancing. These requirements have meant that not only can their fixtures not be held but also their revenue-raising efforts cannot be realised.

Fortunately, water charges were one of the few things which remained bolted down and which were not flogged off under the tenure of the former Liberal government during the 1990s. It is still within the government's control to provide relief to South Australians from water costs, whether they be the charges that accrue due to water usage or the supply charges. In fact, it is something that the opposition called for a number of weeks ago as a way in which the state government could support households, businesses and indeed sporting and community clubs that are impacted because of the coronavirus pandemic.

The response from the government was that we were already going to get a drop in water bills from 1 July, ostensibly because of the tremendous fall in interest rates, not because of any proactive action from this government. Of course, that came with the significant rider from the Treasurer, Rob Lucas of the other place, who said 'depending on the budget position at the time'. I think we all realise that the budget position is going to be significantly deteriorated for this current financial year let alone going forward, not just because of any moneys that this government might choose to expend to support the community through the coronavirus pandemic but also because of the significant reductions in economic activity that we are anticipating.

That does not augur well, really, for how much support this government might lend to those people in the community who are required to pay water bills, and I think that is disappointing. It is one area where the government could provide some support. It is also difficult for sporting clubs in particular to make their voice heard to the government because, as we have heard from the Deputy Premier in response to a previous question during the committee stage of the bill, people are encouraged to make requests to the government for financial assistance through their industry associations.

If you are a sporting club, the industry association is Sport SA. Sport SA has been told, so I heard on ABC radio a few days ago, that the grant scheme administered by the Office for Recreation and Sport, has been put on hold. It has been put on hold at the exact time when clubs are most desperate for grant funding and most desperate for financial support so that they can maintain their clubs and their operations.

If people are encouraged to use their industry associations in order to receive assistance from the government, you then have to ask the question about how one quasi-sporting organisation, the Stadium Management Authority, was able to secure financial support straight out of the blocks. Indeed, it was even mooted by the Treasurer himself before the state stimulus packages were finalised and announced. He said, 'Well, there are terrible impacts on community sporting organisations. You only have to look at the Stadium Management Authority.'

I think we can all be honest: they are a lower order priority than the thousands of sporting clubs and community clubs that exist throughout South Australia. I would much rather financial support go to clubs, for example, in my electorate, like the Seaton Ramblers Football Club, West Lakes SMOSH, Grange Uniting Netball Club or the two surf lifesaving clubs which I am fortunate enough to have in the electorate that I represent, rather than a corporate organisation that has taken upon itself to charge football fans the highest beer prices in the country.

I do not want to digress too far, of course, during the course of this debate to ruminate on the rent seeking and profit seeking of the Stadium Management Authority because we should be focused on the things that actually matter to the community of South Australia, like our sporting and community clubs, but that should only serve to refocus our efforts to lend support to the member for Frome for his important amendment so that this measure could be the first of hopefully several different ways that the government can find within itself to provide much-needed support to our community and sporting clubs.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 13

Noes 13

Majority 0

AYES
Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Brock, G.G.
Brown, M.E. (teller) Close, S.E. Cook, N.F.
Hildyard, K.A. Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P.
Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A.
Picton, C.J.
NOES
Chapman, V.A. (teller) Cregan, D. Gardner, J.A.W.
Knoll, S.K. Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G.
Power, C. Sanderson, R. Speirs, D.J.
Tarzia, V.A. Teague, J.B. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.
Whetstone, T.J.
PAIRS
Bell, T.S. Basham, D.K.B. Bignell, L.W.K.
Harvey, R.M. Boyer, B.I. Ellis, F.J.
Duluk, S. Cowdrey, M.J. Gee, J.P.
Luethen, P. Hughes, E.J. Marshall, S.S.
Michaels, A. Patterson, S.J.R. Stinson, J.M.
McBride, N. Szakacs, J.K. Murray, S.
Wortley, D. Wingard, C.L.

The CHAIR: There being 13 ayes and 13 noes, the vote is tied. I give my casting vote to the noes.

New clause thus negatived.

Clause 11.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I indicated in my second reading contribution on this bill, the opposition was very concerned about the capacity for the Treasurer to effectively switch off parts of the financial reporting obligations for agencies, not so much that we did not support the capacity to do that per se. As I said in my second reading contribution, we can all recognise that those agencies, which are otherwise occupied in the more important efforts of combating the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, should not be hauled back to the abacus, so to speak, to prepare their accounts for the Auditor-General's annual audit but, rather, focus on the task at hand.

We did have a significant concern that the way in which the bill is worded leaves that very open-ended. In particular, I refer to the last part of clause 11(1), which provides that the Treasurer may issue instructions:

if satisfied that the suspension or modification is necessary as a result of circumstances brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic (or as a result of any measures taken to address the COVID-19 pandemic) or to provide economic stimulus during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Read in conjunction with some of the earlier sections we have canvassed during this committee stage, that wording left it open for the Treasurer to maintain his directions even after the State Coordinator had revoked or declared the end to some of the previous declarations that had been made.

For example, in terms of an emergency response from the state, the coronavirus pandemic could be deemed to be over by the police commissioner, yet the Treasurer could maintain these provisions going forward. That was a concern, but I think we have ameliorated those concerns quite significantly by inserting the sunset clause or as we did in clause 6 earlier at that stage of the bill. However, there remain some concerns about how the Auditor-General goes about the certification of the need to pause these financial reporting obligations on agencies and how the Auditor-General is required to report on the certification of those directions.

It is appreciated, I should say, that the government in its bill has included that the Auditor-General may report on those certifications. We would have greater comfort if the Auditor-General was 'required to', not given the 'discretion to' report. That was something which came out in the discussion during the briefing on this bill that the opposition was provided yesterday. I was hopeful that the government might have acceded to this relatively minor request from the opposition. However, we can either pursue that here or in the other place. That is the first point I would make.

I think the second point, which spills over from clause 11 but also into clause 12, is what reparative action is required from the Auditor-General if he does not conduct a full audit, for example, for the 2019-20 financial year, after these declarations have been made? Is he required to conduct that fulsome audit at a later point in time as the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic have lifted upon his agency and other government agencies and there is the capacity to conduct such a full audit?

The advice that I was provided in the briefing from the government yesterday was that the way in which the bill is worded is that it is not required for the Auditor at some point in the future to go back and ensure that there is a full audit of agencies for this period. I think that is a mistake. It is a mistake particularly in light of this parliament being asked to provide two extraordinary tranches of funding to the government, one in the Supply Bill, which we canvassed earlier for the 2020-21 financial year, but also, what we see a little later in this bill, the request that the Governor's appropriation fund be increased from 3 per cent to 10 per cent of appropriations. That in itself is a significant increase and represents a very significant amount of money.

If these moneys can be expended in a period of time when, as a matter of course or at some later stage, the Auditor-General is not required to conduct a full audit, I think that is a matter of concern. I would like to think that any government, let alone this government, would think that it would be a good thing and a prudent thing to ensure that the Auditor-General did conduct his regular full audit at some point in time at a later date, when he and the agencies have the capacity to, to make sure the expenditures and the accounting for these extraordinary amounts is done appropriately.

I understand there will be an assurance-type process, presumably a risk-based assurance-type process, which I notice continues the trend from this current Auditor-General of wanting to conduct risk-based assessments of some agencies while focusing his attention on other agencies. Hence, we have a two-stage annual report now, one where perhaps we are used to fulsome detail of agencies that he thinks warrant it, and for many other agencies we are given an extremely brief, perhaps I could call it traffic light, report of a whole host of other agencies, which collectively between them relate to the expenditure each year of hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions of dollars.

Some members might be comfortable with that; I am not particularly comfortable. I would have thought that $1 million spent in one agency was probably as important as $1 million spent in another agency. All the justifications can be provided—that the information is available upon request or by accessing a particular webpage, or eventually it will be tabled in parliament—but I do not think that enhances transparency. In fact, when we see some members of the government lead to the publication of the Auditor-General's management letters in The Advertiser before those matters are reported to this parliament, I think we have some improvements to be made in how the Auditor-General's activities are reported on, not a further diminution of them.

I place on record my discomfort and the opposition's discomfort with the Auditor-General merely having a discretion to report on his certification of these directives of the Treasurer rather than a requirement. In fact, I would be far more comfortable if, rather than just having a discretion, we had not only a requirement for the Auditor-General to report on this but also a requirement for the Auditor-General to provide in some detail his reasons why he has reached his view on certifying or not certifying particular directives from the Treasurer.

I feel that would provide a far greater depth to the transparency of not only the Auditor-General's decision-making but also some transparency of the Treasurer's decision-making in seeking to issue these directives. It may be attached as an addendum to an annual report, but of course it may be, in the way in which this bill is currently worded, an addendum to an annual report that is not the full audit report we are used to in this place.

It may not be the full audit report we are used to. It may just be an assurance-type report, a risk-based type report. That also raises questions for what happens with future full audit reports to be provided by the Auditor-General because, if one financial year has not had the full and detailed audit, then presumably questions remain over the starting point for the next year's audit, the starting balance, as it were, for those agencies going forward.

I do not think I need to elaborate too much further on this to point out to members that there is a significant risk here in proceeding with this section of the bill in the way that it is worded. I guess that is a very long introduction to a question for the Attorney about whether the government would be willing to contemplate amendments from either the opposition or the crossbench in the other place, not here this evening, to enhance some of the requirements on the Auditor-General when it comes to reporting in this manner.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am going to indicate some general comments, and then I will provide to the committee some more fulsome comments that I have been advised on as to how this model will operate if it is applied during the course of the COVID-19 declaration period/six-month expiry time.

Can I start by saying that it is quite reasonable for any member of this parliament to want to maintain scrutiny in this case via the financial watchdog—namely, the Auditor-General—in respect of public expenditure. That is perfectly reasonable. That is exactly what his job is. He has statutory independence, he is accountable to this parliament and he has a job to do. The opposition have indicated that, given such large amounts of money are being advanced, essentially, by both this bill and the Supply Bill for the application of expenditure without a budget even being published, it is even more important. I do not disagree.

What is being proposed here, though, when I looked to consider the opposition's suggestion that we should have more obligation on the Auditor-General to disclose particulars of any action taken under this regime—it seemed to be a little inconsistent with what we are doing. What we are doing in this clause is proposing to the parliament that we would have some capacity to relax or be flexible as to how the audits process is undertaken under the act under the Treasurer's Instruction.

We are also backing it up, I suppose, with both the opportunity and provision for the Auditor-General to, under subparagraph 5 on page 14, to:

…prepare a report on instructions issued pursuant to this section and either—

(a) annex the report to the…annual report…or

(b) deliver the report to the President and…House of Assembly.

So the mandatory obligation actually is with what happens with the Treasurer's Instruction. That is what I think as a parliament we do need to scrutinise, and there is already provision for the Treasurer's Instruction; it must be published on the Treasury and Finance website. Nothing has changed in that regard. That continues, as it should.

The whole parliament, then, are alert to the fact that this has occurred, and obviously they can seek to undertake that further in our Auditor-General's examinations or indeed in correspondence to the Auditor-General as to the application of it. As to the mandating of an obligation of the Auditor-General to report to us, if I can paraphrase what I understood the opposition's proposal to be here, it is that the Auditor-General ought to be obliged to put in his annual report the number of times he had been under direction to enable him to do certain things and how he might have applied that and perhaps, in addition to that, if my notes were correct, as to what he had in mind as to how he was going to more fulsomely audit a matter or entity in his explanation to the parliament.

That is my understanding of what the opposition was seeking. It seemed to me that the obligation here is that the parliament needs to know if the Treasurer has issued an instruction, and that has to be published and that remains an obligation, not an option, and there is provision already for the Auditor-General to put that in.

The member asks in this committee, 'Well, is the government still prepared to direct, by virtue of statute, the Auditor-General to do things?' I have not overnight made an inquiry of the Auditor-General whether he is prepared to do that or what he intends to do in relation to his reporting to the parliament. As an independent statutory officer, I do not think it is appropriate that as a government we even try to consider overnight how we would do it, but I hope the member at least is reassured that it is the instruction of the Treasurer that, frankly, we need to know about as a parliament, and that is a mandatory publication requirement.

I do not think it would be unreasonable for any member of this house to make inquiry in due course, then, about what process had been either abridged or in some way suspended across to what action is going to be done to do what I would describe as a more fulsome audit of that particular entity or process. That said, I also wish to advise the house in respect of a matter raised as to how the Treasurer's Instruction might be necessary.

I should also say, firstly, that I think the issue of the permanency or otherwise of this is now very clear. I hope it is crystal clear: this is not intended to be a process that survives COVID-19. It will be extinguished like all these other initiatives, and we will deal with it. I will just quickly run through this for the record.

Clause 11(1) sets out the criteria for determining whether or not a COVID-19 Treasurer's Instruction is necessary. Specifically, it states that the criteria for making a COVID-19 Treasurer's Instruction is that it:

…is necessary as a result of circumstances brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic (or as a result of any measures taken to address the COVID-19 pandemic) or to provide economic stimulus during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

These criteria do not set out the time frame for which the COVID-19 Treasurer's Instruction is valid. Rather, this is determined by clause 6, which sets out the expiry of the act, and clause 11(10), which states:

On the expiry of this section under section 6 all instructions issued by the Treasurer pursuant to this section are taken to be revoked.

At this point, the government considers it necessary for any of the provisions set out in the COVID-19 Treasurer's Instruction to be maintained on a transitional basis. Clause 18 provides for the ability to achieve this by way of regulation. Whether, or for how long, any COVID-19 Treasurer's Instruction requires extension through use of transitional provisions will depend on the time of the financial year that provisions in the act are repealed, as well as the nature of the COVID-19 Treasurer's Instruction issued. For example, if the act were to be repealed early in the financial year, any COVID-19 Treasurer's Instruction affecting time frames for reporting may need an extension for a number of months. Should the act be repealed mid financial year, such extensions should not be necessary.

On the question of whether the Auditor-General should be required to conduct both a review and an audit, which is this whole question of doing a more fulsome assessment further down the track, I am advised as follows: it would be impractical for both the audit and review to be conducted in relation to the 2019-20 financial report. It would require additional resources of both the Auditor-General and the relevant agency. It would also delay the Auditor-General's 2020-21 work.

Both audits and reviews are assurance engagements. Assurance is provided through the opinion of the Auditor. The Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board issues both Australian auditing standards and Australian standards on review engagements. This is a rigour to both types of engagement. An audit concludes with an opinion on whether the financial report is in accordance with the financial reporting period. In a review, procedures are performed and the opinion is based on those procedures as to whether anything has come to the attention of the Auditor that the financial report is not in accordance with the financial reporting framework.

The nature, timing and extent of procedures performed for a review are limited compared with that necessary for an audit, but it is planned to obtain a level of assurance that the Auditor-General's judgement is meaningful. It is hoped that, for the 2020-21 financial reports, the emergency provisions will no longer be in place and, as a result, the Auditor-General will revert to the current requirements that audits be undertaken.

In 2020-21, financial reports will include comparative amounts, that is, financial information about 2019-20 to allow comparison to 2020-21. As part of the audit, the Auditor-General will need to form a view as to whether the financial report as a whole is in accordance with the financial reporting framework. That requires consideration of the 2019-20 comparative amounts. The steps taken by the Auditor-General in relation to the 2020-21 financial reports and forming a view on the whole report, including the 2019-20 comparative amounts, is a matter for the Auditor-General to determine.

Given these issues, this is why clause 12 provides a discretion to the Auditor-General for a review. It does not seek to mandate it. I have no doubt that the Auditor-General will consider the needs of the parliament when exercising this discretion. All of that said, I propose that, as quickly as we can, either I or the Treasurer speak to the Auditor-General.

It would be helpful if I had any specificity as to exactly what the member would have in mind but, as I understand it, it would be an indication where the Auditor-General would be happy to provide in his annual report the number of times he was directed under a Treasurer's Instruction and how he applied the alternate processes and whether he is proposing to do a more fulsome audit, if in fact he accessed the flexibility that was allowed by the direction. If there is anything else, I would ask the member to give it to me before midnight and I will see what we can do.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I appreciate the efforts of the Deputy Premier to assuage the concerns of the opposition in regard to this matter. However, despite the document she has just read from, there is no requirement in this bill for the Auditor-General to provide an assurance-type review or a risk-based financial review according to Australian accounting standards. That is a matter that is canvassed in clause 12 of this bill.

I do not want to take the enjoyment out of what lies before us as we get to clause 12. Some say the anticipation is better than the actual moment, Chair, and I am sure you will agree that applies here when it comes to the discussion we look forward to for clause 12. However, the way in which I understand the scheme to operate, which has been proposed in clause 11 in this bill, is that the Treasurer may issue directions or alleviate agencies of the burden of complying with the Treasurer's Instructions—for example, by issuing instructions—but before they take effect, the Auditor has to certify that, in his view, that is necessary and/or appropriate.

It is, I guess, of keen interest to the opposition that the Auditor-General reports to parliament about those certifications that he makes—not just the fact that he has been asked to do them and presumably has done them but his rationale for certifying or otherwise. That is entirely consistent with how the Public Finance and Audit Act currently operates.

The parliament, as the Deputy Premier says, appoints the Auditor-General. He is a statutory officer. In this act we set out exactly what it is that the Auditor-General must do. In fact, as he reports to parliament on various matters, in those reports he sets out the legislative basis for each of those reports. So it is our purview to be setting out in legislation, to be determining via bills, what he should be doing to satisfy us when it comes to financial management and accounting within the public sector.

I appreciate that we have assurances from the government, if not from the Auditor-General himself, about his intentions when it comes to the financial reviews that he may undertake pursuant to clause 12, but we have been here before. In fact, the member for Florey and I raised eyebrows and concerns when the Public Finance and Audit (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill was brought to this place in late 2018, seeking to change the way in which the Auditor-General would report back to this place. We were told that it was some sort of tree-saving initiative where, rather than getting five or six inches of reports at once in the form of the annual audit report, we would instead get a summary of all of the financial reports and associated documents would be available online.

We were also told that the Auditor-General wanted to take a risk-based approach to financial auditing of the public sector so that he could concentrate on what he deemed to be more important areas first and get those to the parliament in the reporting time frames which are contained within the act—i.e. quickly after 30 September each year. Subsequent, perhaps less important audits, as far as he could see, could be provided at a later date.

What that has led to now is a situation where, yes, we do get a two-stage report, the first stage ostensibly being what we have been used to for many years in this place and that is a detailed report from the Auditor-General, albeit with the financial statements published online and not in hard copy here. But what we get subsequently in March or so of the next calendar year is a much smaller, much lighter, particularly in detail, report—as I said, a traffic light-type report. That is not what was detailed to this place when we were making those amendments to the Public Finance and Audit Act in late 2018.

I am not saying it is the view of all people in the opposition, but it is certainly my view that that has not enhanced accountability and transparency of public finances in this state. So, while I am pleased the Attorney has sought further and better particulars from Treasury and the Auditor-General, I presume, about how the reviews pursuant to clause 12 are proposed to be undertaken, that is not a requirement and it is left to the discretion of the Auditor, who may or may not make good on the information that has been provided to us here today.

I am not sure whether I will get my thoughts and those of the opposition back to the Deputy Premier by midnight tonight, but certainly this will be something that we will be canvassing in the other place, perhaps with the benefit, to be fair on the government, of having the Treasurer resident in the other place, being able to consider, if not to better particularise, what the government's and the Auditor-General's intentions are. I do register my discomfort with how clause 11 is currently drafted in that I think there is too much of a discretion for the Auditor-General in terms of his reporting requirements, and that will also be something that I will raise when we get to clause 12.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the shadow treasurer for giving some indication about what he may be able to detail as to the specificity that he would like to seek in the bill and in particular the Auditor-General's obligations being incorporated in it. We will do what we can at this end. I would like to mention two things in relation to the 2018 amendments, which produced a reduction in the published material in hard copy of the Auditor-General's Report.

Certainly in the 20 years I have been here the Auditor-General's Report has rather been expanded in the number of volumes, but I did have the pleasure of receiving from Heini Becker, who was a former member of this parliament and head of one of the finance committees, a copy of an Auditor-General's Report from the late the 1960s. They were very thin volumes, back in the days when it was less than a billion-dollar-a-year budget. I think Don Dunstan was the first one to have the first billion-dollar budget for South Australia and there was much controversy about it at the time, but nevertheless—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Is that in decimal currency?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, decimal was 1966. But, just for the member's interest, there is a slim volume for each year. You can imagine some poor secretary in those days who would be typing away on one of those horrible typewriters and then have to white out bits when mistakes were made. It is an interesting read, actually, but I make the point that we seem to have gone full circle.

I do not accept any suggestion or perhaps hint of criticism as to the brevity of what we now formally publish with all the financial accounts being online, because obviously we have to do something about this massive production of paper that we have in these reports. I would also like to remind the member that in fact it was his government that set the precedent for this.

Firstly, premier Weatherill issued an edict in relation to annual reports: there were to be no more photographs, they were going to be slimline, we were going to trim down what was to be in them and they were to be summaries and so on. It brought in a new era. Instead of getting these big fat glossy annual reports from every different agency in the department and every different unit of government, we got the slimline version.

I think the previous government set the trend in that regard. I am not criticising it because I think it is reasonable, if we do have an interest. Not all of us are interested in going through all the financial accounts of every agency, but if we are it is all there and available and we can do that. 'Refer to website', 'refer to this and that' is something that we now live with. I find it a bit irritating, in legislation, to have 'see such and such' written into a bill, where you have to go and find some other reference to be able to track down the penalty on something or definitions on something.

I think it is sloppy drafting myself, but in any event that is the way modern statute presentations are done. It is designed, apparently, to make sure you can keep changing things over here without changing the main act. That may be it. I do not agree with all of these changes, but this is one we have, and we will see what we can do over the next 24 hours to see if we can satisfy the member for Lee's concerns.

I am also advised by my adviser from the Treasury department that the Treasurer's Instructions publication is not mandated. It is not a mandatory obligation, but it is something that is done. It predated this government, I assume—yes. I am assured that it was the same practice as operated under the previous government, just in case there was any concern about that.

Clause passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Clause 12 comes to the substance of the report that the Auditor-General is required to undertake. Rather than being required to undertake the full audit for a financial year, he instead is able to determine to conduct a review in such a manner as the Auditor-General thinks fit. That is the only direction that this parliament will be placing on the Auditor-General when it comes to this.

For the period in which the government agencies, and indeed the Auditor himself, are managing the impacts of the coronavirus on their operations, that is not unreasonable. I think both the agencies and the Auditor-General need some latitude in being able to modify their operations and perhaps constrain the requirements placed on them to the necessary extents.

The point I was making is that if the Auditor-General provides a review of any sort that falls short of the required full audit that we are used to getting, then at some point in the future the Auditor-General and the agencies should be required to go back and ensure that that full audit is able to be provided, because it will be for a period of time when the government is spending, and spending a lot more than it would be otherwise, in an effort to combat the impacts of the coronavirus. It may be, for example, pumping a lot more money into SA Health to enable them to battle the health impacts of the coronavirus, or it may be that agencies like the Treasury department are trying to pump money into the community to stave off the worst economic impacts as a result of the pandemic.

It may also be that during that period of time when all attention is elsewhere, other agencies are perhaps conducting their business with fewer staff and with a great deal more stress to those staff, as we can all appreciate, particularly staff who are obliged to work from home and manage all of the other domestic pressures that come with that, and that some of the business of those departments is not conducted, or may not be conducted, with the same rigour.

We know, of course, that there are always those people in the community who are unfortunately looking to take advantage of government agencies. Indeed, the Deputy Premier probably remembers better than I the episode of the infamous printer cartridges, stationery sales and the promise of free iPads, etc., to those procurement staff. Unfortunately, that behaviour still exists in some parts of the community and it is the Auditor-General's role not only to conduct these annual audits but to make sure that the processes, practices and procedures by which governments receive appropriation and expend those moneys are as rigorous as possible to prevent that from happening.

If we are going to go through a period of time when much larger amounts of money than normal are being spent and there are much greater pressures during this period on government agencies, and in particular on the staff within those agencies, then I think it is appropriate that after the fact the Auditor-General and those agencies should go back and make sure that those audits are conducted according to the existing provisions in the Public Finance and Audit Act. I do not think that is unreasonable.

Yes, I agree with the point the Deputy Premier makes: that is likely to be resource intensive and burdensome, both for the Auditor-General and those agencies for that period. Maybe it occurs at some point in the 2020-21 financial year. I hope it occurs in that financial year and not in the subsequent one because that would suggest that we are dealing with this pandemic for a much longer period.

Nonetheless, I think that greater effort and greater expense and use of resources is a small price to pay to make sure that during this period where the parliament is approving enormous amounts of money to be accessed by the government we can have as much assurance as we possibly need and demand that those moneys have been expended appropriately according to law and according to the processes, procedures and policies of the government of the day.

Clause passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–2]—

Page 15, after line 24—Insert:

(1a) However, the regulations may only—

(a) postpone a time at which a particular appointment would cease; or

(b) extend a particular appointment; or

(c) extend a period, at the end of which a particular appointment would cease,

by a maximum period of 6 months.

This is an amendment that proposes to insert a time limit of up to six months for the operation of this clause. Essentially, if a regulation is to postpone a time at which a particular appointment would cease, or extend a particular appointment or extend a period at the end of which a particular appointment would cease, then this amendment would include a maximum period of six months on that. It arises out of what I think is a sensible suggestion by the opposition that there needed to be a time limit on these extensions or postponements. We agreed on the nominated time, and I hope that six months is satisfactory for that purpose.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I appreciate the Attorney moving this amendment. We think it is sensible and we are grateful to her for moving this to ensure that we have that time limit on the appointments pursuant to clause 13 of this bill.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 14.

Ms BEDFORD: I wish to ask the Attorney whether there will be a schedule of documents relating to this clause that will be exempt, things like deceased estates, affidavits, early withdrawals from super, certified copies and statutory declarations and signing of immigration papers. How soon will these intentions be enacted, and will there also be commonwealth and state documents as part of this measure?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have not seen any draft regulation or indication of a list as to what is to apply, but during the course of the briefing your officer made an inquiry whether there would be an overriding of any obligation under commonwealth law, and although I did not tease that out I assumed it was in relation to whether that would be an exemption, for example, on a document required by Centrelink under commonwealth entitlements, and the answer to that is, no, there is no capacity for us as a state administration to override an obligation under a commonwealth law by using this.

This is a power to have a regulation to override, but I did point out to the member's adviser that COVID-19 has thrown up this issue of having documents certified or providing supporting documents, usually for identifying a financial position or identifying proof of who a person is. For example, on applications for Centrelink, at their end the commonwealth has made some exemptions on having declarations signed in relation to some applications and a driver's licence is apparently now being accepted.

So they have relaxed at their end some of these. I would be surprised if the commonwealth was going to initiate any relaxation in relation to migration documents, but that is just a guess. I think it is probably more likely that they would target things like Centrelink payments or access to benefits, a bit like we have done during the bushfires at the state level.

The Commissioner for Business Services has exempted obligations in relation to birth and death certificates and provided dispensation of paying for fees because, if suddenly someone's house gets burnt down, they of course need to be able to have new documents, and so on. We want some flexibility built into it, and that is what this is for. But, no, we do not have a list at this point.

I do know there has been some consideration by the courts of what they might accept, but if I were to use an example, I do not think they would be moving towards saying that they will accept a will if you had just signed it and you do not have your two signatures. Somewhere in between we need to appreciate that, especially when people are seeking some financial relief or support, we need to have some flexibility here; that is really the purpose of this during this time.

Ms BEDFORD: Well, that is not going to be the case with the early withdrawal from super, I wouldn't have thought.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: I wouldn't think so.

Ms BEDFORD: No, so we are still in the same position. So will all this be overseen eventually where documents are proven to be inaccurate or not correct? How is that going to be sorted out afterwards?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think with any relaxation of a rule it may be substituted with something else, of course. For example, I was just saying that, instead of signing a declaration that you are the person, you have to present a driver's licence. It is not necessarily at the highest standard, but alternate arrangements are made sometimes in these circumstances. Obviously, if someone were to fraudulently do something, then of course there may be some action in relation to that.

I suppose without having anything specific put to me, I think every time you relax something obviously you open the door a bit more to someone who might be unscrupulous, who might want to be dishonest or to get a benefit they should not otherwise have access to or pretend to be somebody else—and that is a bit easier to do without having to have your 100-point passport regime, for example.

As I said, the chief justices are looking at ways of how they might still hear matters. They may require other forms of identification. They might require someone else's corroboration, for example. Changing them and making them more flexible does not mean that they are going to be inadequate; however, there is certainly always a risk that this could occur. Largely, it is to ensure that we can equitably and efficiently process matters, usually for the benefit of a consumer or a member of the public, to ensure that they can quickly access what they need. That is what this is designed to do.

Ms BEDFORD: Notwithstanding that information, Attorney, what will be done to ensure adequate access to JP services for the public? I can tell you from our experiences in the past couple of weeks, as the only office operating in our area, that we are very, very busy and people are very, very grateful that we are still there. Even with the relaxation, without a list of documents or exemptions, people are still going to be running around. We are trying to do all of this to alleviate the concerns of the public, but I am not sure that is going to be the outcome in the short term.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Apart from Centrelink providing some relaxation of rules, which, as I understand, is the only particular area that is being granted, I do not disagree at all with the fact that we have an issue with access to JPs. Largely, they are a population within the community who are mature age. One of the problems is that, apart from the ones who are sometimes in the electorate offices of members of parliament, they are in home isolation at the moment.

A lot of councils have closed those services. As of 30 March, Consumer and Business Services no longer has JPs available. Yes, electorate offices are still providing that service, and there is still electronic access in order to find JPs in your area, but I totally agree that it is more difficult now. There are usually around four categories of people who can sign documents.

One category is justices of the peace and commissioners for taking affidavits in the Supreme Court—I am one of them, but there are not many around and they are not immediately available. The other two are proclaimed bank managers—I think they are an extinct species; I do not think they exist—and police officers above a certain rank, and they are busy.

I understand this because I made some inquiries and the answer that came back was, 'We're pretty busy. We really haven't got time to be doing this.' I do not disagree. It is one of the practical outcomes of trying to balance scrutiny for the purposes of giving out public money and benefits with the expediency of the circumstances we are dealing with. I thank the member for bringing the matter to the attention of the parliament. As I said, we are doing the best we can. I think we have around 6,000 JPs in South Australia, but—

Ms BEDFORD: Less than a third are still active though.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, no. I think the Hon. Michael Atkinson, when he was attorney-general, did a bit of a cleansing of the list.

Ms BEDFORD: He purged the list.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Purged—yes, that is probably a better word. He sacked them all, essentially. He brought a thing to the parliament to dismiss them all from the list and everyone had to reapply, and he had a bit of a screening process. They are very much mature age because that is naturally what we would expect—that people will, in retirement, be available—but at the moment we have a practical problem.

I thank the member. I think a number of members would still be providing this service in their electorates, especially if their local councils are not, so I thank all members who are still making this service available to their constituents and assisting them to navigate benefits to get through this COVID-19 pandemic.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Does clause 15 apply to meetings facilitated by the Constitution Act 1934?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If the member is referring to parliamentary committees, yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: And the parliament itself?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No; indeed, more work would need to be done. I am advised there would need to be amendments to the Constitution Act for us to be able to deal with parliament and Executive Council, neither of which I am asking to be considered in this bill.

Clause passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Are there particular types of documents that require service that this clause is aimed at?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that it is general. I have to say that over the years we have changed a number of different ways we serve certain documents in an individual piece of legislation. This will be a sort of catch-all. In different acts we have actually modernised this over the years, under the previous government, to bring into place service electronically, but this is really to cover a circumstance where we would need to serve. It is for general application, but there is no particular proposed deficiency of a particular process in mind.

Clause passed.

Clause 17 to 20 passed.

Schedule passed.

Schedule 2.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My question relates to 26B on page 29. Can the Deputy Premier iterate—or perhaps reiterate, given that she addressed this in her second reading contribution—who is and who is not captured by 26B?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My re-reading of the Emergency Management Act, from when we debated it back in 2004—so a long time ago—alerted me to the fact that there is provision in that act which enables the Coordinator to get access to information. As I understand it, it is the sort of situation where a police officer needs to have the address of someone found to have COVID-19 and needs to be in isolation, the person has a motor vehicle and the transport department may have the address—that type of thing.

There would be information that they would need to get and normally the transport officer would be in trouble if information was disclosed in those circumstances. We have the Coordinator needing to have access to information, which he has, and then we need protections for those who might provide it, and the use of it by the Coordinator, for example, to track the person who needs to be contacted.

The provision here, to suggest that there will be no obligation to maintain secrecy or other restrictions on the disclosure of information, applies to a person who is required to disclose information by a directional requirement issued under section 25, except an obligation or restriction designed to keep the identity of an informant secret. I hope the example I have given is a good one. Of course, we have the other situation that happens when information is kept secret.

It reminds me of the story of the Irish doctor who says to his patient, 'I've got some bad news and some even worse news. The bad news at the highest level is that you're going to die in 24 hours and the even worse news is that I couldn't get in touch with you yesterday.' The situation is that in an emergency we need to bring into play important relaxations, and that is what this is designed to do to protect those who are obliged to disgorge this information and then provide it to the Coordinator.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Does it apply to doctors, lawyers, journalists—and I know this is unfortunately topical today—priests?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My understanding is that legal professional privilege is still protected and unlikely to be abrogated. I was given some advice on some other spot, too, so let me find it—incrimination. Would that apply to a priest? There are certain ones, yes, although it has been an interesting day.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: And doctors and journalists?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised by the head of parliamentary counsel—and she knows everything—that this is not a clause that requires them to give information; it is a clause that protects them if they give it. If a journalist, for example, or a doctor was asked for this information, it is not a mandatory obligation to provide it, it is a protection if they do. I hope that is clear.

Mr ODENWALDER: I have a couple of questions about this section. We have established already that this section of the Emergency Management Act confers on the State Coordinator and the police commissioner, pretty extraordinary powers albeit temporary. I just want to clarify a few simple things. Would 5(b) or any of the new sections allow the State Coordinator or an authorised officer to apply electronic monitoring to anyone who is required by order to self-isolate, if he or she thought it necessary to ensure compliance? It is not explicit, but would it confer that power?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The answer is that I do not think so. I am getting a shaking of the head from the Crown Solicitor. We have not yet had a situation of it to be a direction that is issued, but if it is as an obligation to wear one, if they had failed to undertake a direction—in other words, it is a sort of term and condition of the breach—then that would be a matter that would not necessarily be determined by the Coordinator, but if there would be a finding of a breach of the direction, that would have to occur first, I would think. Can you ask me a specific scenario and it might make it a bit easier.

Mr ODENWALDER: If someone is directed by an authorised officer to self-isolate, to quarantine themselves for 14 days for instance, and they refuse to do so—repeatedly breach the order, however it is phrased in the act—the State Coordinator or an authorised officer's intention is to keep to that person in this kind of detention, this self-isolation, this quarantine. Would they have the power, even though it is not explicit in the act, to employ the use of electronic monitoring to ensure that compliance?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No; I have had that advice confirmed. That has not been expressly provided for in this bill for the purposes of supporting a decision of the Coordinator to do it. If, on the other hand, the person had failed to carry out a direction and the Coordinator thought, 'I'm going to give him an on-the-spot fine,' or, 'I am going to have him referred for charging,' and it came before a court, then obviously a court may set conditions in relation to bail and/or penalty, that is a different arena. However, in relation to the Coordinator, there is no specific power for the Coordinator under the current act or this bill to put bracelets on people, is the advice that I have.

Mr ODENWALDER: I appreciate that, Attorney. Can I just clarify then: the way (5)(b) is worded, that person can 'use such force as is reasonably necessary…in ensuring compliance with a direction or requirement under this section'. Would the use of an electronic bracelet or an electronic monitoring device not be considered the use of 'such force as is reasonably necessary'? Could it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The advice I have is no.

Mr ODENWALDER: My second question is more simple, I hope: section 25(2)(a) deletes the words '(using such force as is necessary)'. I am wondering why that would be so.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Because it relates to the further provision, which I have now just lost, which under (5) is placed into another spot under (5)(b). So it is taken out of 25(2)(a) and it is put into the new 25(5)(b).

Schedule passed.

Schedule 3.

The CHAIR: The member for Florey's amendments Nos 5 and 6 are consequential on amendment No. 4. I am therefore going to invite the member to move No. 4 as a test case. If lost, she should not proceed with Nos 5 and 6, but if No. 4 is agreed to I will invite her to move the other amendments. Is that clear, member for Florey?

Ms BEDFORD: Yes, sir, that is clear. I move:

Amendment No 4 [Bedford–1]—

Page 32, line 14—After 'amendments' insert 'and transitional provisions'

I acknowledge that the remaining amendments are consequential. These amendments will ensure that a declaration of a major emergency by the State Coordinator under the Emergency Management Act cannot be indefinitely extended by cabinet. In simple terms, it mandates that if an emergency needs to be in for longer than 28 days the matter escalates to a disaster declaration which is subject to parliamentary oversight.

What this means is that a government, on the advice of the Coordinator, can declare a further disaster for 30 days following the initial 14 days of a major emergency, and 14 days of extension approved by cabinet. Then after a full 58 days, the emergency declaration can only be extended with the approval of the two houses given by resolution. An extension may be granted for as long as parliament thinks fit.

The term 'disaster' sounds like an escalation for a major emergency, but in reality it merely extends the length of time for which the extraordinary emergency powers are available. These powers represent a significant curtailment of civil liberties. If they are to apply for longer than 28 days, it should not be a decision taken by an unelected official alone, however responsible that individual may be. It should require agreement by the principal democratic body of the state.

No-one doubts the Commissioner of Police as State Coordinator will make a declaration on a considered basis. The issue here is the extraordinary incursions on civil liberties, such as those conferred by the Emergency Management Act and further extended in this bill, cannot be simply declared on an indefinite basis without proper scrutiny by this parliament. This is a gap in the act that has been revealed to the crossbench because of our concern about the loose time frames within this bill and, as the Attorney-General has stated, this is the first time the Emergency Management Act is being put to the test. That is why this parliament should exercise careful supervision of its use.

If this amendment is carried, as the Chair has said, the next amendments will be consequential. I commend this amendment and the consequential amendments to the committee.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for her explanation. It is true that this is the first time we have used the provisions of this act, which provide for a public health incident, across to a state of emergency, across to the disaster clause, and so we do not really know what is necessarily going to be in or out of a disaster circumstance—whether it is an earthquake, if we were at war with Victoria or if we were hit by a nuclear bomb. I assume it would be something that would have statewide implications and would be either some invasion of our territory or a natural disaster resulting in complete chaos. It may be that we lose all electricity across the state—

An honourable member: We have had that before.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —that's right—so we just do not know. I think what the member is saying is that if we have 14 days and we extend it to 28 days, as we have for this one, and then we may need another 28 days, the irony is that in trying to avert a disaster we are trying to spread out the curve of contamination and infection. So it is offending the member's view that, if something gets stretched out over a period of time, then we should be graduating to a disaster and then therefore it would have the scrutiny of cabinet and/or the parliament.

That may be in the end how we have to deal with these types of situations, but I say to the member that to impose a time frame on the commissioner while we are dealing with the COVID-19 circumstance—and all the health officials say we should try to spread it out, which means moderate inconvenience to people as far as their social distancing goes—to ensure that we have the preparedness for what is potentially a more intense health response to avert that disaster situation is the advice we are receiving.

It may be that at the end of this exercise in this particular circumstance, which I hope will be concluded sometime this year, when we sit down as a parliament—certainly as a government, but ultimately as a parliament—and say we were given some extra temporary powers that the Coordinator has asked to clarify, and that is fine, we are making it temporary. But at the end of this exercise we do need to sit down and ask: has this worked? Is there a better way to do it? Should we have four steps? Should there be different processes? That I think is probably a sensible way to go. Then we need to have the advice from health professionals and others who activate this.

But let's be clear: we already have other laws that can place great inconvenience on us for extended periods of time. One which the member may not be familiar with, but which has been used a number of times even in my lifetime, is to completely shut down a district in Australia under biosecurity laws. You cannot go in or out if there is a contamination of disease, such as foot-and-mouth disease.

Ms Bedford: Or chickens.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, bird flu was one where we had some issues. I am not sure that we shut down districts across the state at the time. Nevertheless, we had horse flu, for example. We had regulations promulgated which said there shall be no horses, asses or donkeys allowed to come into the state; so there are lots of restrictions there. But, as far as locking down a town or a region, which has happened—you cannot go in or out—once you are in that district you had to stay in there and you could not go out, and that can happen for a long time. If you look at England as the most recent example of the mad cow disease—I think a couple of cases ended up in the United States—again, there was a complete shutdown.

It is a new experience for us in Australia, in metropolitan areas, to have to deal with what is now very close and controlled accommodation, or at least social segregation rules, but sometimes we have had to actually employ it in different ways. Is this the best way to do it? Is the incident emergency disaster model the best way we can do it? I do not know the answer to that, but I for one could not recommend to the government that we would support such an amendment as this halfway through this pandemic and leave us vulnerable, particularly having regard to the person that we have appointed to undertake this responsibility—namely, the Commissioner of Police—to be the appointed Coordinator, and just say, 'Well, look, after the second 14 days, that's it, you can't do it any more, we're going to have to go back to parliament or we have to have a new process.'

That I think would be very unhelpful in the circumstance that I think otherwise he is managing very well. He is certainly giving us advice as a community. It is changing fairly often, and that is understandable, given the fact that we are trying to manage this over a sustained period. Let's, I would suggest, perhaps not go down the line that is recommended in this amendment but to really agree as a parliament that we will look at this issue down the track and see whether we might be able to improve the model, but for the moment the government has confidence in the police commissioner to undertake this responsibility.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: Member for Florey, given that amendment No. 4 was not agreed to, I suggest you not proceed with the other two amendments, given they are consequential.

Ms BEDFORD: I heard and understood your instructions, sir.

The CHAIR: Okay, so the decision has been made: we are not proceeding with those amendments.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As to the clauses surrounding Crown immunity—so 32A and 103A—does that extend to all activities undertaken by the government in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic or just the measures in relation to this bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. To be clear, I will just repeat that. I am advised that it only relates to actions taken under the Emergency Management Act for the purposes of this declaration process for this incident or period of emergency.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: For example, would that obviate a medical malpractice claim for somebody who was being treated in a public hospital for the coronavirus?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The advice I have is that that would not be, as a matter of course, involved in this just because they have the coronavirus. We are really talking about directions that are made and actions taken as a result of those directions. I was just going to try to find some examples of this. For example, if an officer is asked to undertake attendance at a property to check if someone has gone into social isolation, having come back under our new border directions; namely, they have arrived back and they have to go into two weeks of isolation.

You will have heard the Coordinator announce that he has instructed various of his police force, as authorised officers, to go to the homes and do checks to see that they are actually at home. For example, say there was an attendance at a property and there was a question of entering the property to see whether the people were inside, if damage was done to the property and then there was some subsequent claim that it was beyond necessary force to check on that person for the purposes of identifying if they were in isolation pursuant to that direction, if there was a civil claim in relation to the liability of the authorised officer's action in those circumstances, it would not render support to a claim for them to be successful.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I take it that it does not attach to medical malpractice claims.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (21:33): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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