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

COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:03): I move:

That standing orders be and remain so far suspended as to enable the introduction of a bill without notice forthwith and passage through all stages without delay.

The SPEAKER: There being an absolute majority, I accept the motion. Is it seconded?

An honourable member: Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: The motion is seconded. Does anyone wish to speak to that? If not, I will put it at once.

Motion carried.

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:03): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to make various temporary modifications of the law of the state in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to make related amendments to the Emergency Management Act 2004, the Payroll Tax Act 2009 and the South Australian Public Health Act 2011 and for other purposes. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill 2020. The bill seeks to ensure the safe and efficient functioning of government and mitigate the economic impacts on the state throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. It also promotes general community safety by adopting measures that will support social distancing and other community restrictions in line with health advice.

The government notes that some of the measures proposed in this bill are extraordinary. This is why the bill is divided into four different types of amendments. First, part 2 of the bill creates a number of general modifications to existing state law. Second, schedule 1 of the bill contains special provisions relating to the detention of certain protected persons. Third, schedule 2 of the bill provides for the temporary modification of the operation of particular state laws. Fourth, schedule 3 of the bill makes related amendments to the Emergency Management Act 2004, Payroll Tax Act 2009 and the South Australian Public Health Act 2011.

To ensure that these extraordinary measures only operate for so long as required to deal with this public emergency, clause 6 of the bill provides that this act will expire on the day fixed by the minister by notice in the Gazette, although provisions of part 2 schedule 1 or schedule 2 may expire at an earlier date. The day fixed by the minister for the expiry of that date must be the day on which all relevant declarations relating to the outbreak of COVID-19 within South Australia have ceased, provided that the minister is satisfied that there is no present intention to make further declarations. To be absolutely clear, the initiatives—except for those in schedule 3 in this bill—will all expire as soon as we get to the end of this pandemic declaration period.

Clause 6 further provides that, for the avoidance of doubt, the expiry of a provision of this act under this section does not affect the validity or operation of anything done in accordance with the provisions before that expiry. For example, a contract executed in accordance with any modified requirements under section 14 would remain validly executed, even after the expiry of that section. The provisions in schedule 3 will continue beyond the expiry of the act. For example, the provision exempting the JobKeeper payment from payroll tax assessment calculation needs to continue for as long as employers continue to receive that benefit.

I will now deal with each of the changes proposed by the bill. Clauses 7 to 10 of the bill contain provisions relating to commercial leases, residential tenancies, residential parks, rooming house agreements and supported residential facilities. These provisions seek to support the national cabinet's agreement that, amongst other things, a short-term temporary moratorium on eviction for non-payment of rent be applied across tenancies impacted by severe rental distress due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clause 7 of the bill modifies the law of leases to provide protections and relief for commercial tenants impacted by the pandemic. The provisions apply to all commercial leases in South Australia but exclude leases under the Pastoral Land Management Conservation Act 1989 and the Crown Land Management Act 2009, as those acts already provide broad discretion for government landlords to provide protection and relief to tenants as those landlords consider appropriate.

Landlords will be prohibited from taking certain actions against tenants who experience financial hardship, including eviction for non-payment of rent or outgoings, requiring a tenant to pay land tax, terminating a lease or imposing other penalties on tenants who stop trading or reduce hours, and charging interest on unpaid rent. In addition, there will be a freeze on rent increases during the prescribed period. There will also be a role for the Small Business Commissioner to mediate disputes and make determinations on the question of whether a tenant is suffering financial hardship and related issues with an appeal to the Magistrate's Court.

Clauses 8 and 9 of the bill set out the provisions applying to residential tenancies and residential parks with select provisions also applying to a rooming house agreement. Along with a moratorium on evictions solely on the grounds of unpaid rent, the proposed amendments also include a prohibition on rent increases; a provision for the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) to consider COVID-19 pandemic-related factors in cases of undue hardship to tenants or landlords and to make an order that it considers appropriate, including in relation to costs associated with the termination of an agreement; a general protection for tenants who breach their agreement as a result of complying with a direction under law relating to the COVID-19 pandemic; and a requirement that inspections be conducted by audiovisual or electronic means unless there are exceptional circumstances to conduct the inspection in person.

Clauses 7, 8 and 9 have limited retrospective operation if landlords take or have taken certain actions against tenants at any time from 30 March 2020 to the date of the assent of the bill. This is in line with the national cabinet announcement made on 29 March 2020.

The operation of the Supported Residential Facilities Act 1992 is modified by clause 10 of the bill. Primarily, the amendments seek to ensure residents of these facilities will not face homelessness unnecessarily during the COVID-19 pandemic, providing this vulnerable group security during a challenging time. The amendments also protect proprietors of supported residential facilities from being taken to have committed an offence under the act, or to have breached a term of licence or resident contract or other agreement, if they are reasonably complying with the proposed amendments to the act or any directional law applying to or regulating supported residential facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clause 11 of the bill enables the Treasurer to make instructions under section 41 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 to suspend or modify the operation of any provisions or regulations of that act and any requirements under another act or law relating to financial reporting or auditing. Such instructions are only permissible when the Treasurer is satisfied that the suspension or modification is necessary as a result of circumstances brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic or to facilitate economic recovery during or following the pandemic.

Further safeguards include requiring the Treasurer to consult with the Auditor-General in relation to any instruction that modifies or suspends any provision of part 3 of the Public Finance and Audit Act, with the Auditor-General to certify that the suspension or modification is necessary; authorising the Auditor-General to prepare a report on any instructions issued by the Treasurer pursuant to this section and to deliver that report to the President of the Legislative Council and Speaker of the House of Assembly; and authorising the Auditor-General under clause 12 to conduct a review in place of an audit.

Clause 13 of the bill creates a broad general power for the Governor, by regulation, to extend time limits and terms of appointment. This broad power will assist in a number of different circumstances; for example, many appointments to various offices are currently in place for periods that may expire during the COVID-19 pandemic. For some of these appointments, there will not be the capacity for arrangements to be made for new appointments to take place. The ability for periods of appointments to be extended is paramount to ensuring that the state’s courts, tribunals, boards and regulatory bodies can continue to operate.

There are many instances, including in legislation, where there is a requirement for face-to-face witnessing of documents, whether by a member of the public or a person fitting statutory criteria to do so. Examples include the witnessing of advance care directives and powers of attorney. The current directions under the Emergency Management Act 2004 impose legal social distancing restrictions which may increasingly impact the ability of people to execute documents in a legally effective way.

In addition to legal restrictions, there may be an unwillingness of persons qualified to witness documents where there are statutory requirements for them to do so, due to anxiety about the associated health risks. Clause 14 of the bill contains a regulation-making power to address these limitations, including giving scope to address particular policy and operation considerations such as the need to assess a person's capacity and ensure integrity of the process.

Clause 15 of the bill addresses a limitation in existing state legislation, such as the Associations Incorporation Act 1985 and legislation establishing boards of management for statutory authorities, which requires entities to meet. Although in some cases it is clear that the legislation allows for such meetings to be held personally or by other means including electronically, in many instances it is not clear that these measures are available for all these entities. The amendment overcomes this limitation and provides clarity for all those bodies that they may continue to conduct their business and meet their statutory obligations.

Clause 16 of the bill contains provisions relating to the service of notices and documents. Clause 17 sets out the general regulation-making powers for the purpose of the bill. For example, regulations may provide for:

circumstances in which a person will be taken to be suffering financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic for the purposes of a tenancy provision of this act;

matters to which the Commissioner must have regard in making a determination under section 7;

the mitigation of adverse impacts on a party to a lease resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, including by making provision for any measures to regulate the parties to a lease or the provisions of a lease;

a scheme for a community visitor or visitors for the purposes of schedule 1; and

fines not exceeding $10,000 for offences against the regulations.

Clause 18 provides that the Governor may make regulations of a savings or transitional nature on the expiry of any provision of this act under section 6 or on the revocation of any regulation in accordance with section 17(5). This provision is reserved under the sunsetting provision in clause 6. Clause 19 of the bill provides immunity from liability.

Schedule 1 of the bill contains special provisions relating to the detention of certain protected persons. During the COVID-19 pandemic there is a risk that supported accommodation service providers will need to detain people with a mental incapacity—for example, requiring them to remain inside a supported accommodation premises—in order to follow the Chief Public Health Officer guidelines and to minimise the risk of exposure to COVID-19. However, under current law such detention might be seen as unlawful.

In order to prevent any such detention being unlawful and to manage other risks, it is proposed that temporary detention orders be approved by an appointed authorised officer or by the guardian of the person (if one has been appointed) for a period of 28 days. After 28 days a report must be made to SACAT, along with an application for further detention if that is required. A person subject to such an order would have access to existing internal review mechanisms at SACAT. To ensure additional external oversight, the amendments also provide that the Community Visitor Scheme be expanded so that visitors have the ability to make contact with any residents and service providers and provide reports to the Principal Community Visitor.

Schedule 2 of the bill temporarily modifies the operation of the following state laws. Part 1 of schedule 2 amends the Emergency Management Act 2004 to clarify the powers of the State Coordinator under section 25 on the declaration of an identified major incident, a major emergency or a disaster under division 3. Of course, as members know, that is exactly what we are under right now.

Under the current section 25(3), if the State Coordinator is of the opinion that the scope of an emergency is of such a magnitude that demand for medical goods or services cannot be met without contravening laws, the State Coordinator may, despite those laws, authorise the authorised officers or authorised officers of a particular class to provide goods or services or a particular class of goods and services on such conditions as he thinks appropriate.

The bill deletes section 25(3) of the Emergency Management Act 2004 and instead inserts a number of provisions in its place. New subsection 25(3) provides that the State Coordinator or his or her delegate may give or impose a direction or requirement under this section that is to apply generally throughout the state (which also clarifies that an authorised officer cannot).

New subsection 25(4) provides that any such statewide direction must be published within 24 hours after it is given (as per the current practice of these directions being published on the South Australian Legislation website).

New subsection 25(5) clarifies the State Coordinator’s powers and provides that he or she, or an authorised officer, may exercise or discharge a power or function under this section even if that would contravene another law of the state. It allows the State Coordinator or an authorised officer to use such force as necessary in the exercise or discharge of a power or function under this section and clarifies what directions or requirements that are given or imposed by the State Coordinator or an authorised officer may do.

Subsection 25(6) allows the State Coordinator or an authorised person to exempt a class of persons or a place from a direction subject to any conditions. Under section 25(7) the State Coordinator must consider the advice—must consider the advice—of the Chief Public Health Officer before exercising or discharging a power or function that would authorise the provision or direct the provision of health goods or services or a particular class of such goods or services.

New section 26B makes it clear that if the State Coordinator requires the disclosure of information by a direction or requirement under section 25, then that person is under no obligation to maintain secrecy or other restriction on the disclosure of the information, except an obligation or restriction designed to keep the identity of an informant secret.

Under section 28(1) of the Emergency Management Act 2004 it is an offence to refuse or fail to comply with a requirement or direction of the State Coordinator or authorised officer without reasonable excuse. This section is amended so that the offence is now expiable with a fine of $1,000 for a natural person or $5,000 for a body corporate.

The amendments proposed by this bill are supported by the State Coordinator. He welcomes clarification of his powers to make it clear that he can make general directions in circumstances of emergency and that these powers are not to be hampered by the operation of general law. Further, in the event that he needs to order the construction of public works urgently to address the COVID-19 pandemic, he can do so without delay.

The operation of section 71A of the Environment Protection Act 1993 is modified by part 2 of schedule 2 to add to the ways that the collection depots may pay refund amounts to customers to include electronic funds transfer. This will provide a further payment option for collection depots and customers that is consistent with the Australian government Department of Health statement, updated 31 March 2020 re social distancing for coronavirus, stating that people use tap and go instead of cash.

A key part of the government's COVID-19 pandemic response is to fast-track key infrastructure projects in order to assist with economic stimulus. Current requirements under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 in relation to the Public Works Committee, whilst appropriate in normal circumstances, potentially could operate as a barrier to key construction work being undertaken quickly. The operation of the Parliamentary Committees Act is modified by a new section 16AA, which allows certain steps in the process to be bypassed in appropriate and limited circumstances.

To provide the government with the flexibility it requires to respond to the needs of the South Australian community in rapidly changing circumstances, it is proposed that, for 2019-20 only, part 4 of schedule 2 of the bill provides for an increase to the level of the Governor's Appropriation Fund established under section 12 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987, from 3 per cent of the amount set in the annual Appropriation Act for appropriation in respect of the previous year to 10 per cent.

Part 5 of schedule 2 of the bill amends the South Australian Public Health Act 2011 to provide the Chief Public Health Officer with the ability to enforce detention orders made under section 77 of the act. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this means that, where a person who has been diagnosed with COVID-19 refuses to stay in hospital when they have been directed to do so by health and medical practitioners, the Chief Public Health Officer or their delegate will have the power to use reasonable force, where necessary, to ensure this a person does not go out into the community and infect others.

For example, clinical staff may need to escort a person from the emergency department to a secure COVID-19 ward. While these powers are already implied in the South Australian Public Health Act 2011, this amendment will ensure it is expressly clear that the Chief Public Health Officer and clinical staff with delegated powers are able to act in this way in the interests of averting significant risks to public health.

The Minister for Health and Wellbeing is aware of the significant anxiety and concern raised by clinical staff on the frontline of the COVID-19 pandemic about persons leaving hospital against their advice. These amendments provide assurance for our clinicians that they can keep people in hospital when they need to.

Schedule 3 of the bill contains related amendments to certain acts. New section 32A of the Emergency Management Act 2004 provides that no liability attaches to the Crown in respect of any acts or omission in connection with the exercise or discharge of a power or function under this act, and that carrying out of any direction or requirement given or imposed under this act in relation to COVID-19 pandemic.

This provision operates retrospectively so that the Crown has no liability in relation to directions of the State Coordinator made prior to these amendments coming into operation, and members would be aware that a number already have been issued by him. A similar amendment is inserted into the South Australian Public Health Act 2011 in part 3 of schedule 3 of the bill. Finally, the Payroll Tax Act 2009 is amended to address payroll tax implications arising from the JobKeeper payment announced by the Prime Minister on 30 March 2020.

New section 17A will ensure that wages paid or payable by an employer to an employee that are subscribed by the JobKeeper payment are exempt. The exemption does not apply to any part of wages paid or payable to an employee that are not subsidised by the JobKeeper payment. The amendments reflect the agreement reached by the Board of Treasurers that wages paid or payable equivalent to a JobKeeper payment received by an employer should not incur payroll tax. This clause will expire on the day on which the JobKeeper payment ceases.

These are extraordinary times, unprecedented times. It is a time for governments to act and act decisively. No government has ever before had to confront challenges like the ones we now face. As members would be aware, this is the first time our Emergency Management Act has actually been put to the test. Our government is determined to do whatever is necessary, relying on the advice of experts to ensure that our people and our state get to the other side of this COVID-19 crisis as well as we can. The changes proposed to this unprecedented bill underscore the magnitude of the challenges ahead, but together we will get through them.

I would like to conclude by thanking all South Australians for their patience so far and for the patience they will need in the coming months. I commend the bill to members and I seek leave to insert the explanation of clauses.

Leave granted.

EXPLANATION OF CLAUSES

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

This clause is formal.

2—Commencement

The provisions relating to commercial and residential tenancies are to be made retrospective to 30 March 2020.

3—Interpretation

This clause defines 'instrument' and 'relevant declaration' for the purposes of the measure.

4—Application of Act

This clause provides for extra territorial operation of the measure (to the extent possible).

5—Interaction with other Acts

Except as is provided in the measure, it is in addition to and does not limit, or derogate from, the provisions of other Acts and laws.

6—Expiry of Act

This is a sunsetting provision for the measure.

Part 2—General modifications

7—Provisions applying to commercial leases

The provisions of this clause operate to modify the operation of the Retail and Commercial Leases Act 1995, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1936 and the Real Property Act 1886, including the operation of retail shop leases under those Acts. It also operates to modify the operation of other commercial leases that don't fall within the ambit of those Acts. These modifications will be taken to have commenced on 30 March 2020 and will operate going forward during the 'prescribed period'. This is defined to be the period starting from commencement of this clause and ending on the expiry of the provision under clause 6 of the measure, or the period of 6 months (or a longer period fixed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette) from commencement of the provision, whichever is the earlier.

The clause provides that a lessor cannot take certain prescribed action against a lessee that is suffering financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic on the grounds of a breach of a lease due to failing to pay rent or outgoings, not opening for business during hours required or other prescribed acts or omissions. Prescribed action is defined broadly to include eviction, exercising rights of re-entry, possession, forfeiture, termination, distraint of goods, seeking damages, payment of interest on arrears of rent, performance of obligations pursuant to a guarantee or recovery of a security bond.

The clause makes provision for a party to apply to the Small Business Commissioner to mediate a dispute between the parties as to whether or not a lessee is suffering financial hardship, or to otherwise apply for a determination of the Commissioner of that fact. A right of appeal lies to the Magistrates Court against a determination of the Commissioner. The clause also provides for the Small Business Commissioner to mediate disputes between the parties of a commercial lease in relation to other issues that have arisen in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic arising from the operation of this clause, the terms a commercial lease, or the occupation of premises or operation of business conducted at premises that are the subject of a commercial lease. In performing these functions and exercising these powers, the Small Business Commissioner may exercise the same functions or powers that the Commissioner has under Part 7 of the Fair Trading Act 1987.

The clause also clarifies that a lessee acting in accordance with the laws of the State in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic will not be taken to be in breach of their lease or constitute grounds for termination of the lease. The clause also provides that unless the parties otherwise agree, rent payable under the lease (other than turnover rent) may not be increased if a lessee is suffering financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nor can a lessee suffering financial hardship be required to pay, or reimburse the lessor for land tax during the prescribed period. Provision is also made by this clause in relation to the retrospective operation of these provisions so that any action or measures that have been taken between the commencement of the clause and the assent of this measure by the Governor (the relevant period), that would be contrary to the provisions of this clause, that have either not been completed, or only partially completed, or have ongoing or periodic effect, will be stayed or suspended.

To the extent that any action or measures may have been completed (in whole or in part) during the relevant period that would otherwise be contrary to the operation of this clause, the parties to a commercial lease may apply to the Magistrates Court for an order to mitigate those effects on the grounds of the financial hardship of the lessee.

8—Provisions applying to residential tenancies

This clause makes a number of modifications to the way residential tenancy agreements operate during the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular aimed at minimising impacts arising out of the pandemic and relating financial hardship. The bulk of the modifications are set out in subclause (1), and have effect to according to their terms. The modifications include preventing landlords from evicting tenants for non-payment of rent, caused by financial hardship suffered as a result of the pandemic. Similarly, landlord cannot increase rent during the pandemic, and the Tribunal must take certain pandemic-related matters into account when making orders under the Residential Tenancies Act 1995. The Tribunal is also conferred with modified powers in relation to the kinds of orders it can make in certain applications. The Tribunal is also conferred with a special power to make orders that are necessary because of the retrospective commencement of this clause. The clause provides that any other provisions under that Act are modified as necessary to give effect to the modifications made by this clause. Acts and omissions necessary under a direction or law relating to the pandemic that might otherwise amount to a breach of an agreement is deemed not to. Finally, the clause contains a slightly modified expiry provision enabling the Minister to limit the period in which the modifications operate if appropriate.

9—Provisions applying to residential parks

This clause operates to apply the modifications made under section 8 to the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 to agreements under the Residential Parks Act 2007 (namely residential park tenancy agreements, residential park site agreements or residential park agreements), ensuring consistency for proprietors and tenants under that Act with the benefits conferred on tenants with a residential tenancy agreement.

10—Provisions applying to supported residential facilities

Similar to clauses 8 and 9, this clause modifies the operation of the Supported Residential Facilities Act 1992 to confer similar benefits on residents and proprietors under that Act, albeit slightly different due to the slightly different mechanisms under that Act. But essentially, proprietors cannot terminate resident contracts for failure to pay fees and charges where the resident is suffering financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nor can they raise fees and charges during the period.

Similar to the other clauses, the Tribunal's powers are modified to allow it to make appropriate orders in the circumstances of the pandemic. The clause also limits visits by certain allied health and other persons to those that comply with any relevant COVID-19 directions or laws.

11—Treasurer's instructions relating to financial and audit requirements

This clause allows the Treasurer to issue instructions to suspend or modify statutory requirements relating to financial reporting or auditing 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-1 pandemic) or to provide economic stimulus during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Instructions may not modify or suspend any provision of Part 3 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 unless the Auditor-General has certified that the Auditor-General is also satisfied as to the necessity of the measure and instructions may not diminish the powers or protections of the Auditor-General under any Act or law. The clause also contains reporting powers for the Auditor-General.

12—Audits by Auditor-General

This clause allows the Auditor-General to determine to conduct a review, in such manner as the Auditor-General thinks fit, instead of any audit.

13—Extension of time limits, terms of appointment etc

The Governor may, by regulation, postpone time limits or extend periods of time that would otherwise apply under an Act or law.

14—Requirements relating to documents

The Governor may, by regulation, suspend or modify any requirements under an Act or law, or an instrument, relating to the preparation, signing, witnessing, attestation, certification, stamping or other treatment of any documents.

15—Meetings in person etc may occur by audiovisual or other means

Despite a provision of any Act or law, a requirement that a meeting occur or that some other transaction take place that requires 2 or more persons to be physically present will be taken to be satisfied if the persons meet, or the transaction takes place, remotely using specified electronic means or a means prescribed by the regulations (which may also exclude certain meetings or transactions from the measure if need be).

16—Service

This is a service provision for the purposes of the measure.

17—Regulations

This is a general regulation making power for the purposes of the measure.

18—Transitional regulations on expiry of measure

This clause is preserved under the sunsetting provision in clause 6 and allows for regulations of a savings or transitional nature to be made when the other provisions expire.

19—Immunity

This clause provides immunity from liability.

20—Further provisions in Schedules

This is a technical provision relating to the material in the Schedules.

Schedule 1—Special provisions relating to detention of certain protected persons during COVID-19 pandemic

This Schedule contains a scheme for the limited detention of certain mentally incapacitated persons living in supported care (protected persons) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Guidelines made by the Minister will set out the relevant matters (and are binding on people acting under the Schedule),where mentally incapacitated persons are unable to properly comprehend or comply with a pandemic related direction, for example due to dementia, then the person in charge of the facility in which the person usually resides will be able to detain them within that facility, using no more force than is reasonably necessary.

The Schedule has a number of oversight measures. First, it establishes the office of the Authorising Officer, who will review detentions under the Schedule, will be able to direct other persons and will, if the protected person does not have a guardian, be able to order their detention. The SACAT also has review functions, including reviewing the actions of the Authorising Officer.

Detention under the Schedule is able to be conditional, including conditions allowing a protected person to leave their residence to seek, for example, medical treatment.

There is also a capacity for authorised officers—police officers and others appointed under the measure—to detain protected persons who are unlawfully at large, and return them to their place of residence.

The Tribunal may give advice, directions or other assistance to those who are uncertain about their powers or responsibilities under the Schedule.

The Schedule creates an offence to remove a protected person from a place at which they are being detained.

Finally, all detentions under the Schedule cease on the expiry of the Schedule.

Schedule 2—Temporary modification of particular State laws

This Schedule contains specific modifications to the Emergency Management Act 2004, the Environment Protection Act 1993, the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 and the South Australian Public Health Act 2011.

Schedule 3—Related amendments

This Schedule contains related amendments to the Emergency Management Act 2004, the Payroll Tax Act 2009 and the South Australian Public Health Act 2011.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (11:32): I rise to speak on the COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill just introduced into parliament by the deputy leader. I appreciate the explanation that she has provided to us of the range of measures contained within the bill. As she said, this is an extraordinary bill and it perhaps reflects in that respect that we live in extraordinary times. I indicate from the outset, as we did in the previous sitting week of parliament, that the opposition is keen to support the government's efforts in combating the impacts of the coronavirus that we confront as a community in South Australia.

In the last sitting week, we gave very speedy support to the unprecedented Supply Bill that was introduced—I say unprecedented not because it was a Supply Bill but merely for the quantum—the government's support within the bill of $15.3 billion, a multiple of the $5 billion or $6 billion which is usually sought to maintain the operations of government into the months of the new financial year as the budget bills are still being debated and passed through the parliament.

Likewise, we seek to support the government's efforts in this bill, although these measures, as canvassed by the Deputy Premier, are not only very broad and far reaching in what they seek to do but also touch a great number of areas of both government and community activity. I think it is reasonable that, at a time when all South Australians are adjusting how they must go about their daily lives, the government seeks to adjust how it goes about conducting its own business. I think that is very reasonable. I appreciate the difficulties and the pressures the government has found itself under in trying to make sure that this bill provides for the government all the necessary powers and expansions of resources that it needs in order to combat the impacts of the coronavirus.

There are very significant changes in this bill and changes to the way in which the government intends to operate. The community may also be impacted by the operations of government. It is no mean feat for any government to try to step into the middle of commercial arrangements between landlords and tenants, for example, and to try to make sure, ideally, that neither party is left significantly worse off as a result of how the coronavirus impacts either the landlord, the tenant, or both.

I acknowledge up-front that the Attorney, her department and her officers are attempting to do whatever they can in trying to make sure that neither landlords nor tenants are left worse off. Having said that, though, we look forward to some discussion with the Attorney at the committee stage about how this will work and what is envisaged in that regard by the government.

It is important for there to be some discussion in this place about the limitations placed on these powers that the bill seeks to afford the government, and the exploration of these measures is of central importance. I forget the words used by the Deputy Premier verbatim, but I think the intent of the bill is for these powers to remain in place until the coronavirus crisis is over, for want of a better term. We will be keen to understand what the government specifically means in terms of it being over and what sort of time period that will relate to. Of course, we do not know the actual number of days, weeks or months that this might mean but, in terms of the legislative sense, we are very keen to understand the particulars of the government's thinking in that respect.

Some parts of this bill are worded in a way that is relatively open ended. Perhaps I am just reflecting my bias in immediately looking towards the parts of this bill that relate to financial reporting and so on. In that respect, the wording that these measures may remain in place, in terms of the Treasurer being able to issue instructions up until the 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, suggests a very open-ended application of the measures contained in this bill, at least in that respect. That is something of keen interest to the opposition and, I would suggest, would be of keen interest to other members of parliament regarding how long these extraordinary measures should remain in place.

I do not mean to continue my bias by skipping over the lengthy and detailed provisions the government is putting to this place with regard to commercial and residential leases, for example, but I will continue my remarks with regard to the Treasurer's capacity to issue instructions relating to financial reporting requirements and also the Auditor-General's auditing requirements. As I said earlier, only last sitting week we were asked to effectively provide the government a $15 billion blank cheque.

We are also being asked now, with this bill, to provide a further one with a more than threefold increase in the size of the Governor's appropriation fund, which I roughly calculate, based on some of the information that was provided to the opposition in yesterday's briefing, at approximately another $1.5 billion, presumably for the period of time between this bill coming into effect and the end of this financial year.

It should be of great interest to not only the parliament but also taxpayers how the government intends to spend those funds and that they are adequately reported on and rigorously audited by the Auditor-General. I think we can all agree that we would prefer those agencies that are responding to the coronavirus pandemic—of course the health department is an obvious example, but it is not just limited to the health department—to respond with their efforts in dealing with that rather than the bean counting that goes into the requisite financial reporting each financial year. I think we can all agree on that. For them to be given some relief from those requirements I think is absolutely understandable and I think the government is right to suggest it to this place.

It comes at the same time that extraordinary amounts of money are being approved by the government, firstly through the Supply Bill that we saw last sitting week and now with this change for the Governor's appropriation fund and also with the suggestion that the Auditor-General will provide not the full audit, as he is required to do under the Public Finance and Audit Act each year to this place, but a different type of financial review, which was described in the briefing that the opposition received yesterday as an assurance review, merely seeking to assure the Auditor-General that the amounts of moneys have been appropriated and expended properly without the full rigour of a financial audit.

I think in the circumstances we can also agree that the Auditor-General might need some breathing room to work with government agencies that are otherwise busy responding to the coronavirus pandemic rather than hauling them through the rigorous process of the end of year audit. That would be fine if this parliament was assured that, at some point in time after the fact, the Auditor-General would be able to turn his mind back to the 2019-20 and, presumably, 2020-21 financial years and be required still to conduct a full audit, as he usually does. That is not, as we understand it, how this bill is currently worded, that for the period of time, when the state is responding to the coronavirus pandemic, the Auditor-General will be required to provide only that lesser review of the state's finances.

I am not sure that that is in the state's interests. I am not sure that that is in the parliament's interests. What I am getting at is that I think we can afford those agencies and the Auditor-General some temporary breathing room under the current requirements of the Public Finance and Audit Act, but that should be matched with a requirement at some later date that a full audit is undertaken. I think that would satisfy the concerns of at least the opposition, that while these enormous amounts of moneys are being approved by the parliament for the government to spend we can be assured there is the full accountability, transparency and rigour in accounting for how those moneys have been spent.

I appreciate that the way in which the bill is worded requires the Auditor-General to certify that agencies should be alleviated of the obligations that they usually have for financial reporting for the purposes of the Auditor-General conducting his annual audit. Given that the Auditor-General must deem it necessary, then perhaps that should be enough for the parliament to feel confident that the watchdog is across what is being proposed and sufficiently comfortable with why this is being undertaken. I think that that in itself is a good start, but it should not end there.

I think it is important to have that step where the Auditor-General is required to certify that agencies be free from or have their burden of financial reporting temporarily eased during this period, but it must be linked with a full and normal audit after the fact, after we emerge from this coronavirus pandemic. Because, without that, it is quite feasible that agencies, either in the front line of responding to the coronavirus pandemic or elsewhere in government, may well not be subject to that normal level of scrutiny and there may be a misapplication or a misuse of funds.

That is not only undesirable but I think we all agree that we are at a time here when every single resource of the state and every single resource of the government, including its expenditures, should have its shoulder to the wheel to help limit, as far as possible, the impacts of this coronavirus pandemic. If we are left in a situation where we do not have that level of transparency and accountability, I do not think that that is an acceptable outcome.

I was encouraged that the government did make contact with the opposition and suggested there may be some amendments to the bill. I am not sure if this will be one of the areas in which the government may seek to provide some changes. If it is one of the areas where the government does seek to make some slight modifications to alleviate the opposition's concerns, then clearly we would welcome that because, as I said at the beginning, we are seeking to assist the government in their efforts to respond as quickly as possible to this coronavirus pandemic.

We also understand that it is reasonable for government agencies to be free from the burden of having to go through the rigmarole of reappointing some appointees to key positions around government at this time. It is a necessarily onerous process to make sure that only appropriate people are appointed to key positions within government. For this limited period of time, if the government can be free from some of those onerous arrangements I think that is reasonable. Of course, as I understand it, we have one or two questions to ask about that in the committee stage, but we should be satisfied in relation to that.

Likewise, regarding documentation, particularly given the difficult times we are in, when we are trying to maintain distance from one another, we have many laws that require the personal sighting and witnessing of documents or even the serving of documents. I think the Attorney has been forward thinking in identifying that as something from which some red tape can be removed during these extraordinary times.

Meetings, for example, occurring via audiovisual or other similar means are likewise another very sensible arrangement that the government is putting to this place. The government is also seeking to give it a very broad regulatory power to give effect to some of the details necessary under this act. You only have to look at the acts listed in clause 17 to understand how far reaching they may need to be.

In terms of the transitional regulations on expiry of measures, clause 18 will, again, be an area where we will be seeking some further information from the government about what is intended here and whether there is likely to be an end point, and what that end point might look like for the operation of some of these provisions.

There are further provisions regarding the detention of individuals whereby that detention is deemed necessary by the government to further protect the public during the coronavirus pandemic. Of course, we seek to tread lightly in these areas and only when necessary. We look forward to hearing from the Deputy Premier some further particulars about how that may work.

We are also interested to hear from the Deputy Premier about how far these powers may be delegated, where they seek to be delegated and, in particular during these times, whether there will be any reporting or any accounting for how delegated powers were used and for what purposes they were used according to this bill. We do, of course, place a great amount of responsibility and, hence, trust in those officers who are taking the lead in the state's response to the coronavirus pandemic, and so it is of the utmost importance to ensure that, if powers to be exercised in responding to the pandemic are delegated, how far those delegations may go in terms of how many levels—if I can put it like that—down the chain they may go and to what limits in reporting there will be on them.

I understand the necessity of perhaps alleviating the government of some of the reporting and approvals requirements that the Parliamentary Committees Act imposes, particularly on capital works of the government, and seeking to temporarily step around the requirements of the Public Works Committee I think is reasonable. I can report to the chamber that as an Economic and Finance Committee we have also resolved to no longer meet unless necessary to conduct a legislative purpose.

I think that is an appropriate way in which this place can modify the way in which we conduct our business to make sure that we are not meeting unnecessarily, and that we are maximising opportunities to maintain appropriate distancing and so on. That should not be taken as a comfort in this place not doing its work. I hear the suggestion from the Deputy Premier that the government seeks this place to meet merely monthly rather than according to the schedule, which was set out late last year.

I think we can all agree that meeting according to the schedule that was set out late last year is unlikely to be feasible, if not for the fact that we are likely to have a much later budget, I think foreshadowed as being roughly October, give or take—perhaps even later. Hence, with that portion of the sitting schedule and the subsequent estimates process, it is unreasonable to think that we would try and keep to that part of the sitting schedule.

But I do think the government would be making a significant error of judgement if they thought it was appropriate for us as a parliament to decrease the number of sittings that we have, notwithstanding that change to the budget process, the budget and estimate schedules. This parliament is already giving the government tremendously more funds and powers to respond to this pandemic. While the signs are very encouraging at the moment about how the state is responding to the coronavirus pandemic, of course we all live—perhaps if I can put it so bluntly—in fear that the current trends that we have seen in the last couple of days may not continue and we may have broader, deeper and more hurtful impacts on the community from this pandemic.

This place has an important role to play in making sure that not only the government is responding to the pandemic as best as it possibly can but that those people in our community who are suffering the impacts of the pandemic are being protected and supported as best they can be by this government. Again, perhaps showing my bias in a portfolio sense once more, as I said earlier, we want to make sure that these funds—these extraordinary approvals that the parliament is providing to the government for $15.3 billion in a supply bill and now an increase to the Governor's Appropriation Fund to 10 per cent or approximately $1.5 billion—are being expended in a way that both limits the spread of this virus as far as possible and supports the community to the greatest extent possible.

This place has a key role to play in making sure that the government is doing everything it possibly can to do that. The suggestion that the parliament does not need to sit, or it does not need to sit as often, is wrong. I think the federal government has been proven wrong when it recently tried to stop sitting for a period of over five months before realising, of course, that they needed to reconvene to deal with urgent legislation. That is just looking at the legislative obligations of a parliament and not the fundamental accountability role that the parliament has in making sure that we are engaging in the basic tenets of responsible government, that we are holding the government of the day to account.

If the government thinks that it can seek this parliament's approval for these sorts of bills, and at the same time send a message that it is no longer interested in convening the parliament or only convening the parliament for what it considers to be a bare minimum, I think that is an appalling message for the government to send. I think we are all doing what we can as a parliament to reduce how our sittings impact on each other and also on the staff of this place, but merely not to sit because it might be seen as an inconvenience to the government I think is a terrible mistake and the opposition certainly will be taking that point up with the government.

I will conclude my remarks there, but perhaps if I can ask the government if it does have amendments we would be very keen to see those so that we can work with the government as quickly as possible on this bill and its passage through this place in a way in which some of those concerns that I mentioned previously can be dealt with.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (11:59): I rise on this new piece of legislation, a very important matter for the house to be dealing with, in the COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill 2020. I believe this is now the fourth piece of legislation the government has introduced following the outbreak and the pandemic of COVID-19.

The first was in relation to the South Australian Public Health Act and amendments to strengthen that piece of legislation to prepare. That, of course, received bipartisan support and unanimous support from the opposition. Then there were another two pieces of legislation that we dealt with last week, one in relation to the Coroners Act and the other in relation to the supply act for the government, in which the government was granted $15 billion without the usual budgetary process in place, both of which received the full support of the opposition.

Now we have this bill, and—as the member for Lee outlined in his speech, and which I associate myself with—obviously we are aiming to be supportive of measures in relation to this. There are a similar number of areas where we are seeking clarification. Clearly, there are a number of areas where it might be necessary to look at amendments in relation to this legislation, but certainly I believe that it can pass through this house easily today and we can work together with the government in relation to those amendments and to those areas that need clarification.

As the member said, there were a number of briefings granted to the opposition last night as part of the very rapid process in which this legislation is being dealt with. Following the member for Lee's briefing that he had with the shadow attorney-general, I had a briefing with some health officials and Dr Chris Lease, now the Deputy Chief Public Health Officer—or one of them—of the state in relation to some of the health aspects of this legislation.

While there were a number of areas where we were able to receive information that provided us with the basis on which some of these amendments were being made, there are areas in which clarification is still needed to be provided, and we are still waiting for that information to be provided as at lunchtime on Tuesday; however, I am hopeful that that will come soon. I am hopeful that we will see any amendments that the government is considering soon, so that they can be dealt with appropriately.

In relation to the health aspects, there are a number of areas that we will go through in detail in the committee stage where the government is seeking to expand some of the powers, expand some of the time frames and expand the ability to provide information, even if it breaches other pieces of legislation in relation to any potential liabilities the Crown would face. The government is seeking to avoid any potential liabilities, which is obviously a very broad exemption that they are seeking to make.

There are some very broad powers the government is seeking in relation to the State Coordinator. Obviously, we are in a situation now where, as a primary basis, it is not the South Australian Public Health Act that is being used by the government; it is now the Emergency Management Act. There were a few days where it was declared a public health emergency, at which point the Chief Executive of the Department for Health and Wellbeing, Dr Chris McGowan, had powers under that act and took some from the Emergency Management Act under the Public Health Act. That lasted for a few days, until it became a matter where the state controller is now in regard to the situation.

This bill would seek to expand that range of powers. It sets forth a detention regime that would now sit under the Emergency Management Act, separate from the detention regime that was in place under the Public Health Act. It seems clear that those provisions of the Public Health Act, particularly the ones where the powers were extended previously, have not necessarily been used during this pandemic. That is not a criticism, it is just a comment that it has not been used to this date, and we are obviously now seeking another range of powers. It think it is important that we do seek those assurances and seek those explanations as to the basis upon which those powers need to be extended.

This is likely to be an emergency that goes for many months. Generally, the Emergency Management Act, when it was envisaged, was likely to be considered for very short emergencies where a whole range of powers would need to be put in place. This is now a longer emergency, and I think that there is every need for the parliament to scrutinise those measures and to ask questions about what is being put in place and the rationale behind that. Given that a lot of those answers were not forthcoming in the various briefings that were held last night, we will therefore be having to use the committee process to get through those measures.

Broadly, in terms of the COVID-19 response, I have to say thank you to the people of South Australia, thank you to everybody across the state and across the country who have been doing the right thing, who have been listening to the instructions from public health authorities, from police, and acting accordingly. We have seen the dramatic impact that has had in terms of what you see out on the street and in our communities, the different way that people are behaving.

But also, hopefully, we are seeing some signs that maybe that is leading to some positive signs in terms of being able to control and limit this in South Australia. So huge thanks to everybody out there doing the right thing. Of course, there are some people who are doing the wrong thing; they are very much in the minority. We need to make sure that the police and our public health authorities have the ability to take action where that is found to be the case.

Our approach, as the opposition, is that we have been very supportive of measures where the government has taken action to protect our state or to prepare our state. Where there are issues where we have identified that we could be going further or we could be taking more action to prepare ourselves and to protect ourselves, then we have been a constructive opposition and put those ideas on the table, some of which have now been adopted.

We are very appreciative of that and we would encourage the government to consider those that have not been adopted to make sure that every step possible is being made to protect us and to prepare us as a state. I think South Australians want to make sure that there is some certainty for them and some level of understanding about where this is going and what the plan is for that to happen.

It is something where, as this has gone on, the Premier has been very clear in saying that he has a strong plan, but that is not something we have actually seen the detail of in what has been released, as far as we can tell, in terms of the different ways he has talked about this plan. It has not materialised in what has been released, so we would encourage the government to release more information, particularly about the triggers the government would consider in terms of when various restrictions need to be put in place and when further restrictions should be put in place, and what the triggers will be when the reverse would happen and where restrictions would be taken out.

I think there is no reason why that should not be levelled with the community. There is no reason why we should not have that open conversation with the community. We have seen other jurisdictions where that has been more forthcoming in conversation and in discussion with the community. Particularly in relation to New Zealand, there has been a very clear strategy that the New Zealand government has outlined as to the trigger points they have for further restrictions being put in place. Whereas in Australia, particularly in South Australia, there is a degree of confusion about what those trigger points are and I think that outlining a clear plan for that would seek to remedy that significantly.

I think it would also be appropriate to have a clear plan in terms of what the case is for our hospitals, what the case is for our community health services or services across the board. The only plan that has been released is very high level. It is basically a rework of the pandemic influenza plan that was released many years ago and it does not go through the details of exactly what the government has in place. We would encourage them to do that. In all regards here, the more transparent and the more open we can be with the community, I believe the better it is going to be in terms of getting the community on side, keeping their trust and making sure that we work through this together.

One area of that is in relation to what we saw in other states releasing their data of where cases have been identified, whereas South Australia was not releasing that data. That is something that we put to the government as a suggestion and recommendation to get this happening here like it is happening in other states.

The government have taken some measures in that regard and have released some maps by local government area. The feedback on that has been underwhelming and people have found it very difficult to work out exactly what the case is in their local area and are more looking for what is in place now in New South Wales, where you can see by postcode level the cases in a particular area.

Another issue connected to the plan and connected to those thresholds is what is the modelling that the government has that is the basis for their decisions? Today, we have the release of the national modelling in some form, though we have not seen what that is yet. The Premier has said openly on radio this week that there is South Australian modelling that is separate from that, but that is not something that has been released or presented to the public. We would encourage and recommend that the government give the public that information and outline for them what that is so that everybody has the chance to know the basis of the government decision-making.

There is a range of issues in terms of our health system. We are hearing daily from doctors, from nurses and from other staff in our health system about the need for better preparation. Chief among those issues is personal protective equipment (PPE), which is a difficult issue for staff across the board daily. Having said that, we welcome the fact that the governments have signed a contract for surgical masks to be manufactured here. That is very welcome and is something that we encouraged the government to work with industry on in a letter we wrote to them about a month ago.

We very much welcome that development, but there is a whole range of other PPE issues, particularly in terms of the N95 masks, which are the fitted masks that are not part of the manufacturing contract here and whose scarcity is an issue. People do not have line of sight as to how available those are, what the shortages are, how many days of supply we have, when supplies are coming, where those supplies are coming from, or how many more we are going to get.

Doctors, nurses and other staff are particularly concerned about their wellbeing. We can see what is happening in Italy, Spain and the US regarding the impact on health workers. They need to be able to make clinical judgements about when it is appropriate to have PPE to protect themselves. That clear guidance and assurance that PPE is going to be there when they need it is really important for those staff. We also need gowns, we also need gloves, and we also need plastic shields that staff can wear, as well. This whole range of personal protective equipment is going to be vitally important and we encourage the government to clearly set out for the public, and particularly for those staff, exactly what the situation is.

Another area where we have been proactive—the Leader of the Opposition has been very proactive—is in terms of raising and recommending border measures to the government. Initially, we did that in relation to closing our borders. The government acted upon that and we thank them for listening to our recommendation on that.

The second issue is that Queensland and Western Australia have now gone to the next level and implemented hard border closures. As we see fewer cases here in South Australia, we need to protect ourselves from people who might be coming across the border. A hard border closure seems to be a very sensible way in which those states are protecting themselves. We do not have that in place here.

The Leader of the Opposition has offered our bipartisan support for a hard border closure to protect the people of South Australia, but the government has so far rejected that. We encourage them to rethink that and to rethink the protections that it would provide our state in terms of people coming across the border. As good a job as our SAPOL officers do, they cannot be everywhere, they cannot check on every house and they cannot check on every person every time.

We need to make sure that people in this state are protected from people who do not need to be here and who do not need to be travelling across the country, particularly when we saw reports about some 10,000 people coming into the state in the week since the border closed. That is a very significant number and we are seeing Western Australia and Queensland reducing it much more substantially, so we encourage the government to continue to consider that.

In relation to staffing today, I want to raise the issue of casual nurses, casual nurses who work their guts out for our health system, casual nurses we have always relied upon to fill those shifts. However, because of the cancellation of elective surgery, those casual nurses are now at home with no job and no income. If they worked somewhere else they would be able to get the JobKeeper allowance. They are not able to do that because they work for a public hospital.

I do not think South Australians would understand why we have nurses at the moment who are sitting at home—experienced and highly skilled nurses—having to apply to Centrelink for Newstart because they are not getting hours through the government. This is because elective surgery has been cancelled, so our hospitals are significantly less busy than they have ever been in many, many years. This is a by-product of that. It is not necessarily anyone's fault, but we can fix it right now.

Let's get those casual nurses back employed. We can get them doing training so that they are trained up more in terms of preparing for COVID-19 cases when we see more cases. We can get them helping our contact tracing team, ringing people and chasing down those contacts so that we can protect people. We could even get them calling vulnerable South Australians—and there are so many vulnerable South Australians out there right now, particularly people in aged care or other elderly people. We could get those nurses on the phone, talking to those people and making sure they are okay. There is a huge variety of ways we could make use of these highly talented nurses rather than having them sit at home, and we recommend the government consider that.

We also recommend that the government be very clear about ICU numbers and ventilator numbers; we have not heard details on that. We are also encouraging the government to take action in relation to flu shots. There are a key number of measures, and one is to allow pharmacists to dispense the state supply of flu shots—like Victoria does, like WA does, like the ACT does. There is no reason not to do that. Secondly, allow pharmacists to provide their flu shots in locations other than pharmacies so that better social distancing can take place. We could have mobile flu stations, etc. That seems very sensible, so let's clear that up.

Thirdly, let's make sure all our health staff on the front line are vaccinated as soon as possible—and let's make sure that happens today, not in a month's time. Fourthly, we think that this year we should subsidise flu shots for everybody so that we can make sure that every South Australian gets a flu shot, that every South Australian is covered and that we do our best to make sure we do not get a peak of COVID-19 cases and a peak of flu cases bombarding our hospitals at the same time.

There are a number of other areas. In particular, the member for Mawson has talked about the need to protect Kangaroo Island, which is a relatively easy thing to do given that it is an island. It has very small health resources, and we continue to recommend that the government take action there. We have seen other states take action to significantly broaden their testing criteria. Yesterday we had only 440 tests done here in South Australia; we could broaden that to do what Western Australia and other states are now doing in covering a broader category of people so that we make sure we hunt down every possible COVID-19 case in this state.

We have put on the table recommendations in relation to schools. If we are going to follow what Singapore was doing, then why not have hand sanitiser like they were having? Why not have better protections in terms of temperature checks, like they were having, if schools are going to remain open? We recommended—and we are glad that the government is starting to take this up—that we need screening in our public hospitals, as public hospitals are doing interstate, to make sure that visitors and staff coming into hospitals are not taking COVID-19 into the hospitals and spreading it around when that could easily be prevented by temperature screens in those hospitals.

This is an important piece of legislation. It is going to be scrutinised by the opposition here and in the other place, and we are going to work constructively to make sure that things that need to be in place are in place. We need to tackle this together as a community to make sure we are as prepared as possible. We will be doing our part to make sure that happens.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (12:19): I would like to contribute to the COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill. I am sure we would all rather not be having to discuss this kind of bill at all. I commend the government for bringing this forward to the house and enabling us to speak on behalf of our many constituents who are extremely concerned about the now and the future of our community, with its COVID-19 experience. I do not want to hold up the bill by speaking at length, but I feel it is important to represent some areas of the community in regard to this extremely worrying situation. I will mostly focus on three main parts of the bill and raise a couple of other issues from my community.

Those areas of the bill that I will focus on are about residential tenancies, parks and supported residential facilities. It is important to take into account, when we do address bills such as this and the impact it is going to have on people—again sometimes the unintended consequences that may occur—that we look at some of the data around those people.

In particular if we look at renters, rented dwellings in South Australia account for around 28½ per cent of dwelling tenures, so it is a really important part of our community. The median rent that people pay in South Australia—it was $260 per week, with 10.2 per cent of those rent payments being greater than 30 per cent of household income during normal times. So if we take that and bury that into our thought process, clearly these are not normal times and there will be an inordinate amount of community members who are losing their income, and the household income will shrink. Currently we do not have a situation where the rent is going to shrink, so that percentage will go up: people will be paying higher amounts of their household income on rent.

If we look at the poverty level in our state, 60,660 households in South Australia are living below the poverty line. While that is an absolutely disgusting blight on civilised society and our community, it represents 9 per cent of all South Australian households—again, this data is done in normal times. It leaves us with 131,945—I am sure give or take a few—or 8 per cent of our people living in poverty, which includes 22,350 children. Forty-one per cent of the people in poverty are single people with no children and often without support—so often without the benefit of a circle around them to provide them with assistance, love and comfort during really tough times.

Households outside greater Adelaide were twice as likely to be in poverty than those in Adelaide, so we need to take that into account and have a strong voice for people living outside of Greater Adelaide itself. There are 7.1 per cent of households below the poverty line in Greater Adelaide and 14.8 per cent of households living in poverty outside of Greater Adelaide.

In terms of income, the analysis of household income levels in South Australia in 2016 compared to other capital cities shows that there was a smaller proportion of high income households—so those earning above 2½ thousand dollars a week—and a higher proportion of low household incomes, those earning less than $650 per week. Overall little more than 15 per cent of households earn a high income, and a bit more than 21 per cent of households are low income households, compared with 24 per cent and 16 per cent, respectively, for other capital cities around Australia.

So what has COVID-19 done to this data in terms of the thousands and thousands of people in South Australia who are now out of work? What has it done to this data in terms of people now unemployed, now facing having no income? We have just heard from the shadow spokesperson for health, the member for Kaurna, about nurses; I will talk about those in a moment. The intent of the provisions designed to modify the operation of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 and the Residential Parks Act 2007 of course are in principle welcomed by the opposition, and we have heard that we will be supporting the bill.

It is incredibly important that people are not evicted and that people are not penalised due to their inability to pay during this crisis. There will be tens of thousands of people who will now be under rental stress, and I am not even addressing the mortgage stress that people will be under as well. Remember, many of these people who have now been made redundant (or for any reason due to the COVID pandemic are not getting income like they were before) were sometimes and often under stress already, so this will only make it worse.

I was really pleased to hear in an online forum held by the Department of Human Services and the South Australian Housing Authority last week that SAHA tenants (South Australian Housing Authority) or public housing tenants would not be evicted because of any reason to do with the COVID-19 pandemic. I am pleased that this bill now extends to all South Australians who were not covered by that statement, so people in residential and park tenancies. This bill gives effect to the principles agreed by both Labor and Liberal states and territories in national cabinet that, amongst other things, a short-term, temporary moratorium on eviction, due to non-payment of rent, should be applied across tenancies impacted by the severe financial distress of COVID-19.

I had also already written to the Minister for Human Services in another place last month regarding many of these provisions before national cabinet announced that moratorium, and I am glad to see that they are now included in this emergency bill to provide more insurance for these vulnerable people.

On a sidenote, I sought a briefing on these and a range of other issues related to COVID-19 from the minister. I did seek the briefing regarding this and other issues, but I have been denied that by the minister's office, and it is disappointing that I am unable to get a briefing myself on what is going on in the Department of Human Services so that I can in turn provide support to people who are coming to me, in their hundreds, asking questions about what to do next, and what does this mean for them.

So, I would reach out a hand to the Minister for Human Services and ask, in the spirit of cooperation throughout this crisis, that she reach down to her office and ask for her office to grant a briefing, which can be as little as half a hour—and of course by remote means, because we are all so good at this now. I never see myself in a car driving to a meeting again ever. We could do this via Zoom or some other type of app. That would be welcomed.

I am really pleased to see that, during a time of such financial stress on the whole economy, there has been an announcement around public housing rents not rising, ensuring that everyone in the community who is renting will not be financially worse off. I would like to get clarification, particularly around the regular CPI rises that are put on to welfare payments and then flow down on to rents, to make sure that that actually is held during this crisis. There are regular small rent rises that occur to public housing tenants in particular, and I would like to get that clarified to see whether that will flow across through the housing authority.

I am pleased to see that physical inspections will not be permitted. I guess in an ideal world in a time of trauma and stress—and we know we will emerge at some point on the other side, and I have great confidence in our public health practices that this will not take years—there would not be inspections at all happening unless there was due cause. I just do not see that there is a need for this. I understand that the guidelines will be that inspections are done through, again, technology.

Are we setting a standard for the future perhaps? It will depend on some cooperation from the tenant in order to be able to provide these images. This then raises the notion of access and the capacity of people within these communities to be able to access good quality internet and provide those images and that streaming. This will be an interesting and challenging time but it also might give us a chance to be a bit introspective in terms of the quality of the data that is being transmitted around our state.

Last week, we heard of a woman in Queensland in private rental who was awaiting a COVID-19 test and was told by her agent that she had to leave the house while he showed someone around, that he did not want a sick person in the house. I have not heard any reports of that in South Australia but I think, hopefully, that has set some people thinking that we need to put some rules in place so that atrocities like that do not happen. I do not think we will see that now into the future, because we are going to put provisions in place to stop that; however, I think that is worthy to keep in mind for the future.

I will touch on further provisions of termination of tenancies in the committee stage just to clarify some questions that I have regarding how tenancies may be terminated because the landlord wishes to renovate a property, but a reasonable person would see, obviously because of financial hardship or other circumstances, the intent of the bill would preclude. I would like to get clarification around that during the committee stage.

I commend the current plan for the housing of people who are currently homeless into motel accommodation. There were some 150-plus people who were able to be sheltered within a very short period of time. This is a really positive move and it shows that if we have the space we can actually provide shelter for people. I wonder what is going to happen in the future to these people. There is a distinct lack of public and community housing options available to rough sleepers and people needing support generally in the community and the public housing sector.

There are still housing sales going on. The numbers are still depleting on the list, and we must stop this, particularly now. We need every public housing property that we have available to us. We have to start planning for the end point for people who have been taken from rough sleeping situations. Remember, these are people in the CBD as well. There are hundreds of people all over the state who are still rough sleeping that we have not even started to address, and there are thousands of people who have been couch surfing. These are people who are hidden in the data at the moment and not part of the conversation. We have to see what is happening to those people.

In fact, in the last short while, I was told that in one small area of housing and homelessness, in one small region, eight families of women and children had to be housed last week. If that is one small area, where are we going to get places for 150-something people who are in motels and hotels? Surely we cannot open the door and say, 'Problem solved. See you later. Here's your stuff, out you go.' This should be an opportunity now to set a standard for the future in terms of the transition of people from homelessness.

In the last few weeks, in addition to other organisations, Shelter SA is ostensibly being defunded. Shelter SA is South Australia's peak advocacy body, a noisy body that keeps governments in check, and I do not think the current Liberal government is on an island here, they were certainly very loud in their advocacy during the Labor government period. I have had many conversations with this body, and many others, about the advocacy in the sector.

You can call it a tender, you can call it bidding for their services, but actually their real services do not appear in the new tender document. I do not know how they will bid for this. I do not know where their future lies. I think it is a very difficult notion to not have a peak advocacy body around shelter. I was told by one senior person—these are not my words, this is a quote from a senior figure—that this is an attack on the head of Shelter itself, 'a personal attack on Alice'. They are not my words, that is what was brought to me, and people in the sector are very nervous.

What do we need more than anything as we emerge from the darkness of COVID-19 in this state? We can be talking about health right now, we can start talking about protecting vulnerable people right now, but we are going to need to restore our community. What will we need more than anything? Advocacy, and we will need people in the space who know what they are talking about. Shelter SA will be gone within a few months if we do not stop this tender process and look seriously at what we are doing.

As the responsible shadow minister for disability, I am really pleased to see that supported residential facilities have been included in the emergency bill. We have seen in the past few weeks people with disabilities all but forgotten in the conversation. There is no additional support for carers in payments—no increase in carer payment—we had no increase in disability support pension and, while they started from a higher base than other welfare payment recipients, these people have different demands on their budget. That is why they start from a different base.

If we look at people who are caring for their loved ones in their home, and people with disability requirements, the expenses are enormous. They are having to order in a whole range of food, they are having to spend a lot more money to support themselves than they did in the past. Somebody rang me yesterday and said, 'How on earth can I eat a vegetable when a cauliflower is $12?' What some people are being charged is ridiculous, and they are struggling.

There is no additional PPE (personal protective equipment) flowing through to the disability sector, and they are screaming out for help and support on this. We need to see the government take a lead here to show that they understand the challenges facing people with disability living in the community, and their carers and the support workers, who are doing a great job, and that they need some help. It is great to see provisions mirrored in the residential tenancy amendments, meaning that no tenancy can be terminated because of financial hardship, and that the fees and charges cannot be increased.

I want to point out that over the weekend the federal government established an advisory board for assisting people with disability to get back on track. I applaud that federal government board, but there is no representation from South Australia. With more than one dozen people on that board, there is nobody from South Australia and that is a disgrace. You need at least one person from each state and territory on a federal government board. There is only representation from the Eastern States. Every individual state and territory has its own unique circumstances and needs a voice.

I want to talk about nurses: my colleagues, my friends. Hundreds of nurses are not getting an income. I understand the need to cancel elective surgery. I absolutely understand they need to do this in order to increase the supply of PPE and quarantine that for use in special circumstances. The issue of supply needs to be urgently addressed. In a state where we only have about 20 people in hospital with COVID-19, with about half of them needing intensive care, we need to turn our minds to the nurses who are out of work.

Many hundreds of them cannot access any commonwealth payment. These people are not wealthy. They are single parents. They are people who are providing food for their families and often paying rent. They are people who cannot and must not be out of work, and the government has to listen and provide alternative options for them. It is ridiculous to think that we have some of the most highly skilled people in our state, people with whom I have worked through the bird flu, the swine flu—through other crises—who care for the sickest and most vulnerable people in our state, and they are out of work. Some of them have not had a shift for nearly a month.

This cannot happen. This has to be addressed urgently, and I look forward to a call or a conversation from anyone in government who would like to help us work on this. These people could be ringing all the vulnerable people in South Australia. They could be offering support in the education around COVID-19.

We have people in our community who have been walking around not isolating because they do not understand. I got off a plane from Brisbane two weeks ago and there was no information at the airport. Had I not been a member of parliament and had communication from the member for Kaurna I would not have known anything about it. I would have gone about my business. We need a better deal for our nurses.

Mr DULUK (Waite) (12:39): I also rise to make a few comments on the COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill 2020. As we all know, the coronavirus has had an unprecedented impact on all Australians. COVID-19 has changed our lives: we will not be commemorating ANZAC Day this year in our usual manner; businesses have closed; many Australians are out of work; footy, whether it be grassroots footy or the AFL, has been postponed; Easter religious ceremonies are being celebrated via live stream; and our school system is traversing very difficult waters for both teachers and students at the moment.

Except for those Australians who have lived through conflicts and world wars, for most of us this is the very first time that our everyday lives have been impacted to such a degree. Understandably, there is significant concern and anxiety throughout the entire community, but I am confident, as all of us are in this house, that if we continue to play our small part and work together we will get through this. As Her Majesty The Queen said on Sunday, 'We will succeed'.

Obviously, we found out this morning that a South Australian passed away as a result of COVID-19. Losing a loved one, as we all know, is very difficult, but to lose a loved one to COVID-19 must be truly distressing. Not being able to celebrate that person's life in the usual manner and the nature of the death must be terribly heartbreaking, so my condolences to that family.

I would also like to offer my sincere gratitude to all South Australians who are working hard on the front line to tackle this coronavirus. Thank you to our healthcare workers at the COVID-19 testing clinics, at hospitals, GP clinics and all other health facilities. Thank you to Associate Professor Nicola Spurrier and her SA Health team for leading us through this crisis. It is fantastic to see SA Health utilising vital community assets such as the Repat site in leading the way for drive-through testing for COVID-19.

To all members of SAPOL, thank you. To those who work in emergency services, thank you. Thank you to the teachers and the childcare workers across the state. Thank you to the staff at all our aged-care facilities who are looking after our vulnerable South Australians, especially those in aged care, where they have to socially isolate and, further to that, cannot be visited by family and friends; it is extremely difficult.

Thank you to the staff in our supermarkets during these times of extra demand. To echo the words of the Prime Minister, I think we all need to calm down when it comes to the issue of buying toilet paper. We manufacture toilet paper in South Australia, at Millicent. There is plenty for everyone, and I think as South Australians we must ensure, especially on this issue, that we apply our common sense. Thank you to all the South Australians who are assisting in dealing with this pandemic. To all of you, I pass on the gratitude of the people of Waite. You are the front line of protecting the most vulnerable in our society and keeping us all safe as a community.

As I said and as has been mentioned today, it has been a very difficult couple of weeks and months for many South Australians, especially those who feel socially isolated, are out of work, have closed their businesses or whose future is uncertain as a result of COVID-19. We have seen unprecedented change, and we have seen it evolve rapidly. So many businesses in my electorate have been adversely impacted, forced to close or have lost their jobs due to the regulations put in place to keep our community safe.

It is an incredible sacrifice for all employers and employees, particularly small businesses, mum-and-dad enterprises that work tirelessly day and night and struggle at the best of times. Unfortunately, this is not the best of times, as we are seeing more unemployment, businesses close and a sharp increase in financial stress experienced by South Australians. There has also been an increase in break-ins at local businesses in my community, and just around the corner from my office, as recently as a couple of days ago.

In fact, these callous acts are making a terrible situation worse at a time when we are seeing many unoccupied retail spaces throughout our communities. We should be lifting each other up at this time, not tearing each other down. As South Australians, we all have a role to play in that regard. This is why I think the support from the Australian government and our state government is indeed welcome and timely and, dare I say, visionary. The federal government's total support for the economy is $320 billion across the forward estimates.

The stimulus packages, JobKeeper payments and other measures will help to secure as many jobs as possible and support workers, businesses and the wider community during a time of unforeseen challenges to our economy. Steven Hamilton, a visiting scholar at ANU, has said that the JobKeeper initiative 'will keep many businesses afloat and connected to their employees, which are critical to a speedy recovery'. It is also vitally important that people have jobs.

Work and what work means to so many people is important. It keeps communities strong and society even stronger. Allowing that connection to remain between employees and employers, people feeling useful and making a contribution to our economy, to our community and to our society is so important. I am particularly heartened to see the new Jobs Hub site, which helps connect Australian jobseekers with job opportunities in a range of industries.

While, unfortunately, many businesses are reducing their workforce, other areas need more workers to meet demands in their particular sector. Connecting workers with available jobs during this significant downturn is essential to keeping our economy going and it is essential to ensuring we can continue to meet consumer demand.

For the last few weeks there has been a lot of discussion around the community and the business sector in regard to the treatment of rental agreements between landlords and tenants. It is good to see that this is being formalised in the bill before us today. These measures will provide certainty for commercial and residential tenants and landlords during such an uncertain time. Among other measures, landlords cannot evict or increase the rent for tenants who are suffering financial hardship as a result of coronavirus. In the case of commercial leases, the Small Business Commissioner can be called on, in the event of mediation, as to whether or not a tenant is suffering financial hardship.

I know a lot of businesses in my electorate will be grateful for these proposed measures. We are seeing the rollout of this as of today, but I sense this is very much a work in progress. How a strip shop in suburban Adelaide is treated and how it goes about negotiating with its landlord will be very different from how a tenant in a Westfield site negotiates with the landlord. This is very different from landlords who rely on rental payments as their only source of income.

Of course, they may have significant financial debt on their business structures as well. I think this is going to be a very fluid arrangement. Certainly, I have no doubt the government, and especially the Small Business Commissioner, where possible, will be looking to do the right thing by everyone involved. As business owners worry about a loss of income, their employees' welfare and the unknown future, it is of some comfort to know that they do not have to be concerned about rent at this time. I think that will be well received across the board.

The bill also addresses a wide array of matters that are essential to keeping our state running and supporting those who need assistance. This includes protections for residents of supported residential facilities to help ensure that they are not left homeless during this critical time. The member for Hurtle Vale touched on that in her contribution. We have many homeless in our community.

It is wonderful to see the government and the not-for-profit sector reaching out at the moment. What we are seeing now is a change in attitude and a change of policy. As we come out of COVID-19, I am sure there are better ways in which we can look after those who are homeless, those who are marginalised and those who suffer the stigma of mental illness. This package also provides for the streamlined ability of the state government to pass on financial support to those who need it most.

During the recent bushfire season, affected Australians were sometimes left waiting extended periods of time before receiving financial aid from government. I welcome the government's move to streamline this process to help those impacted by coronavirus. I stress that these measures throughout the omnibus bill are meant to address the adverse impacts of COVID-19 on our community and on our Australian way of life. I would expect temporary measures and changes that are being proposed to revert back to the normal course and naturally to be reviewed at the conclusion of any COVID-19 declarations.

With this bill, South Australians are placing enormous responsibility into a few very specific hands. This power and responsibility for the passing of any emergency measures needs to be used cautiously and carefully for the benefit of our people. Parliament must always remain sovereign, as it is parliament that is responsible to the people.

I understand that the member for Florey is proposing a series of amendments, which have my broad support, especially in relation to the termination of emergency powers under the bill. In the amendments, I believe this means that if the government believes the emergency provisions in this bill require extension beyond six months, then parliament will have to reauthorise that by further legislation. This is an addition to other aspects of the bill, which make it clear that the powers that have been granted in this bill must not continue beyond the extent of the emergency declarations under the Emergency Management Act and, indeed, the other acts covered in this omnibus bill.

We all have our part to play. While the response to COVID-19 here in Australia is one that is driven by our national and state governments, it really comes down to the part played by each person in their own home and within their own community. In these challenging times it is important that we, as a community, continue to support each other as best we can. I really want to encourage South Australians to continue to shop locally and support local businesses and, importantly, local jobs. It is also important that we stay in touch with family and friends. Being physically distant does not mean we should become socially disconnected. Looking after our mental health and physical health is so important.

With just over 400 confirmed cases in South Australia, I am proud of the efforts of all South Australians to stop the spread. However, we cannot be complacent; we must all play a part in doing what is best for our families, our community and our country. The sooner we can do this, the sooner we will be able to be on the other side of this crisis. I am confident that by working together we can achieve this.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (12:51): In making this contribution to this bill, I indicate my broad general support for this bill, but I would like to talk about what I think are some of the key issues, and these are issues that relate to my portfolios of urban development and planning and also local government, but also how they relate to my local community because this bill will have an impact on all of those areas. The key themes that have come through in my portfolio since I have become shadow minister for urban development and planning and also local government have been issues around transparency, accountability and social licence or social contract. These are key issues that actually need to be considered in light of this bill, which gives wideranging powers to a number of individuals.

We delegate to governments, whether they be local, state or federal governments, a whole range of powers for them to act on our behalf, and it is quite right to do so. But, in return, the community expects transparency, accountability and that decisions meet the test of social licence, and that what we do in this place will only work if the community believes that it is fair and reasonable and it meets requirements of the social licence; in other words, that we actually pass laws which are fair, reasonable and necessary.

I also believe that transparency and accountability are shared responsibilities in our community and in our democracy. As legislators, we have the primary responsibility to ensure that our laws are fair, reasonable and necessary. The media has an important role to play in protecting our democracy by holding governments at all levels accountable for the decisions they make and that decisions are transparent and have the given social licence from the community.

For this and many other reasons I was deeply saddened when I heard last week that my local newspaper, The Bunyip, closed its doors after publishing for 157 years. It was devastating to my community and I felt it immensely. It was published through wars and depression, but recent financial challenges and COVID-19 made the newspaper unsustainable in the short term. I do trust, though, that The Bunyip will return and return quickly.

We need more media, not less. We need local media, not less. Local papers inform, educate and connect. Their role is important every day and more so when we are living through a crisis. We need The Bunyip and other local newspapers to publish again as they provide an important oversight of democracy at the local level. We need The Bunyip to ensure that governments at all levels make transparent decisions and are accountable for them.

Local papers reflect the views and values of local communities, and ensure that government decisions and laws have social licence. In my portfolio areas, The Bunyip has done an excellent job to report and generate discussion on important local government urban development and planning issues, as have a number of other local papers throughout the state. The role for Gawler's local paper cannot be shared or delegated to other media. Unfortunately there are some in our community who have not lamented the close of The Bunyip, and that is sad. You cannot expect other media to pick up where The Bunyip has left off. It is not the same.

Every local community, and particularly those in rural communities, understands that each community has its own culture and values that cannot be conveyed correctly or appropriately in a true sense from other papers. If you believe in local democracy, you will support your local media who knows and understands your local community. All local papers do a good job in reflecting their local community, and I say local community, not adjacent communities. As I said, each community has its own culture and their local papers best reflect that.

There may be those local decision-makers, whether they are at the local, state or federal level, who do not like the scrutiny they receive from their local media, and that is understandable. However, the critical issue is, who will hold future decision-makers accountable if there is no local media? That is why all levels of government need to stand by, and stand up for, their local media. Their communities quite rightly expect them to do so. In times of crisis, local media help local people to remain connected and informed.

This is central to our democracy. I would like to return to the sadness and shock I felt when I heard that The Bunyip was closing. I am hopeful that local, state and federal decision-makers will stand up and support our local media in their hour of need so they will be there in our hour of need. I think the issues raised by The Bunyip in their last, and hopefully not their final, edition raised key issues that I would like to quickly touch upon. I will read some passages from the paper:

Regional newspapers through Country Press SA and also our national association Country Press Australia, have been lobbying governments—

all governments—

for many years to support our industry. This has fallen on deaf ears as governments continue to shift their ad spend to online platforms.

It goes on to say:

We are the medium relied upon to generate public discussion and debate to ensure decision makers are accountable. We are the medium expected to publish the government's media releases of their good deeds, stories of expenditure on vast public works projects and grant funding, yet we receive less and less of the government/s' spend each year.

It then goes on to say:

Some of our mastheads—

this is the group of local media—

are more than 150 years old and our communities depend on us as the only local voice that holds government and business to account and acts as a voice to the community.

Democracy as we know it today will be changed forever, unless something is done now.

I could not have said it better myself. With the few seconds I have left, I would like to end where I started this contribution: accountability, transparency and social licence underpin our democracy and we need our local media for that.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.

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