HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-09-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

COVID-19 Emergency Response (Expiry and Rent) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr DULUK (Waite) (16:03): Before the suspension of the house, I was talking about rights and freedoms and referring to an article in The Australian today by Jack Mordes, who talks about how martial law restrictions were enacted by General Jaruzelski in 1981 in Poland. He goes on to say that the restrictions:

….are oddly similar to those in Victoria living under Daniel Andrews's rule four decades on.

There was a 10pm curfew with police patrols enforcing zero tolerance. Borders were closed. Movement between cities and regions was prohibited unless you carried a special permit. Classes in schools and universities were suspended. Telephone communications were monitored. Opposition activists were arrested, many without charge. The police (called the militia) became an arm of the government.

To many Victorians, this is certainly what they are feeling at the moment. I think it is really important for all members of parliament across our beautiful country to really think about what is happening in our society at the moment as we grapple with this health pandemic and economic crisis we now have. Of course, as a nation we are now in recession, and for so many Australians it is the first time they have ever experienced that in their lifetime. I seriously struggle to understand how a government in this nation can allow protests on one issue during the middle of a pandemic but now arrest citizens for planning protests organised in protection of our most basic civil rights, as they are in Victoria.

South Australians, and indeed all Australians, want to do the right thing during this pandemic. Unfortunately, we too often see a double standard in terms of rights and privileges. Most recently, the AFL elite flew to Queensland to announce that the AFL grand final would be played at the Gabba, but a pregnant woman from Ballina could not travel 100 kilometres to Queensland for medical attention and because of that she lost her unborn child.

Undoubtedly, we have all received a considerable amount of correspondence from our constituents with stories of their struggles coping with COVID-19, especially those who are stuck in Victoria. I know this is the case for many of our border communities and MPs. My office is no different, and I would like to share with the house some of the frustrations of my constituents as they try to go about sensibly navigating the COVID world.

I would like to begin with the example of Mr and Mrs Pollard of Hawthorndene, who are constituents aged in their 70s. They travelled interstate from South Australia to Victoria to attend a funeral. As regulations changed, returning home became quite the ordeal. When attempting to return home, SA Health offered the couple an ultimatum: either continue their indefinite self-funded stay in Victoria or accept the price of their self-funded hotel quarantine in South Australia. Mr and Mrs Pollard certainly did not feel that they had a choice, and there are a number of issues I want to raise in relation to that.

Firstly, this law-abiding couple could easily have self-quarantined at home, and the question from many is: why the need to quarantine in a hotel, especially at a cost of $4,000? They felt a greater risk to the virus was upon them when being forced to quarantine at a hotel, where potential COVID cases were isolated with numerous different people and staff visiting on a daily basis. We have certainly seen the failure of hotel quarantine in Victoria. After this couple indeed saw that saga, and for them they certainly felt that it would make more sense for them to isolate at home.

For three months, these residents and their family were under immense stress, as they were in Victoria. On a daily basis, they were not sleeping and were concerned about the impact of their physical and mental health, to the point where they thought they had a high chance of becoming infected and dying because they were in Victoria.

They availed themselves of testing on multiple occasions, and results returned as negative. Unfortunately, their story gets worse. After finally receiving an exemption from South Australia and deciding to inherit the costs of that return, they embarked on the journey back to South Australia. When they left Melbourne, instead of a simple direct drive home (prepared to not need to refuel in South Australia and return directly to quarantine) that would not involve contact with anyone in South Australia, the following prevailed. I will now read the story from the Pollards, and I quote:

We booked to cross at Penola (the nearest approved crossing to Torquay) at 2.00pm on Saturday. Unfortunately, we received no contact details or confirmation email.

We left Torquay around 9.15am on Saturday in plenty of time to be at the Penola Crossing by 2.00pm.

Just out of Hamilton at 11.15am we received a call checking on our progress. We said we were doing well and would be at Penola well before 2.00pm.

Then the bombshell dropped. We could not cross at Penola and would have to be at Bordertown by 2.00pm or be in the next convoy leaving at 10.00am on Sunday. We said we didn't know if we could make it and could we call back.

Panic! After a hectic check on Google Maps we got an ETA of around 2.45pm [to Bordertown].

Then followed a hectic and stressful drive through Western Victoria. We arrived at the border just before 2.30pm Adelaide time after driving without a break, apart from toilet stops, for nearly 6 hours.

When we arrived in Tailem Bend our escort changed. Due to our advanced age both Cris and I were in desperate need of a toilet stop.

We were told we couldn't use public facilities and could we hang on for another hour.

We were opposite the golf course and I asked if we could find a tree there. We were escorted across the road by a female officer! A great way to treat a 75 year old lady!

When we arrived at [the Adelaide] hotel they tried to get us to the room as quickly as possible.

Unfortunately, we were escorted to the wrong car park. After unloading the car we had to re-pack and had to pay $8 to get out of the carpark. Eventually we made it to our room.

Unbelievably we received a phone call from a SAPOL Officer the next morning. He was at our home and we weren't there as required! We told him we were in quarantine in the Pullman.

Ms Pollard made some recommendations and I believe they might be simple, but they of course require resourcing by the government:

all returning travellers be given a single [SA Health] contact person and all arrangements are confirmed by email;

appropriate arrangements are in place—

I think she is referring to the toilet needs of travellers, and:

stops are made at least once every two hours.

I would take this further to say we do not even need to have such strict measures. I think there are plenty of sensible individuals who are able to isolate.

Of course, there is a lot of paperwork and I know there is a lot of stress placed on SA Health workers and SAPOL in monitoring the restrictions we have in place, but quite often we need to allow common sense to prevail and allow those who are making decisions on the ground to have common sense prevail as well. The simple ability to allow any person to be able to relieve themselves when driving back from Melbourne to South Australia seems like a very logical one. Once again, I think we forget that and get caught up in bureaucracy.

Another story I would like to share is of my constituent Mr Jurkovic and his wife, who applied to move to South Australia permanently on 10 July 2020. Mr Jurkovic is originally from South Australia and many of their family and friends still live here. Based on the rulings at the time, they had to accept a new lease for a property in Kingswood and gave notice to their home in Richmond, Victoria, to prove the legitimacy of their intentions.

Mr Jurkovic also registered for his first semester of CPA Australia and booked exams in Adelaide whilst his wife was transferred to the Telstra Adelaide team. It is great to see some Victorians choosing to live in South Australia. Indeed, why would you not want to live in South Australia? After lengthy administrative ordeals jumping through all the hoops and with days between correspondence from SA Health, they received approval at 10pm on 30 July.

Then, after making significant plans and booking a removalist, they surprisingly somehow received a decline for their application on 31 July at 12pm. Despite best efforts and contacting many departments, no-one could verify which notice was correct. Mr Jurkovic and his wife, who had packed up and planned for their whole life to move here, were now in disarray. Mr Jurkovic and his wife had both been cleared of COVID, ticked every box in the application and had emphasised measures to strictly social distance and to self-quarantine.

Why was this family denied entry into our state? I am not sure. What message does this send to other families considering moving to South Australia? For a state that needs significant population growth, this is not a good look, in my opinion. We should be encouraging population growth, not limiting it. I say we should be opening up the door to many, especially South Australians who have sought to create a life in Victoria and other parts of Australia, to indeed come back to this wonderful state.

There are multitudes of other stories in terms of what I have received from my community, such as that of Heidi Riessen, a mother of four who has lived, worked and volunteered in Australia for 40 years, who now has her daughter stuck in Germany and unable to come to Australia. There is Mr Kym Driesener, who is trying to maintain his business, JK Race Trailers, during these times and of course one is one of those businesses that quite regularly needs to travel to Victoria to collect stock for his trailer business. Unfortunately, because of the difficulty with so many of the exemptions and permits, his business has been shut since April.

The questions that many of us ask, and I think they are legitimate questions, are: with very few active cases of COVID in South Australia—we have done a magnificent job in flattening the curve—what is the endgame and what are we trying to achieve? We have very strong restrictions, but at some point I think we need to start having a debate about what life looks like if COVID is here to stay.

We do not know when a vaccine is going to come. There were discussions on the news on ABC last night about how successful vaccine trials take many, many years. There is debate happening all around the world about what a vaccine will look like if it comes in the next 12 months. I think we need to have a conversation as a parliament and as a state about what does living with COVID in the long term look like for our society.

I think we can see that the Victorian approach of trying to eliminate the cases to zero is not working. The way the New South Wales government has been doing their tracing seems to be a much better model to adopt. We have seen stress on businesses, we have seen stress on individuals and we are seeing plenty of stress on families.

The way we are dealing with COVID is leading to the cancellation of events that us bring such joy—sports, theatre, the arts, the Christmas Pageant—and this is happening at a time when there are few to no cases in South Australia. The question we always need to ask is: what are the costs of these restrictions?

We have seen the scourge of isolation and loneliness, with calls to Lifeline increasing by 20 per cent during the first lockdown. Unemployment and underemployment are at an all-time high, with over 70,000 South Australian's reportedly being unemployed. What is that going to look like when JobKeeper and JobSeeker eventually run out? We have seen the worst quarterly reduction in GDP on record and an expected $1.85 billion projected fall in South Australia's GST revenue over the next two years. As the Library of Economics and Liberty has recently stated:

…the costs of this national shutdown are growing by the hour, and we don’t mean federal spending. We mean a tsunami of economic destruction that will cause tens of millions to lose their jobs as commerce and production simply cease. Many large companies can withstand a few weeks without revenue but that isn’t true of millions of small and mid-sized firms.

Indeed, that is exactly what South Australia is: a small and medium-sized economy. While the road to recovery is not an easy task, we need to carefully consider both individuals and businesses when we are planning the new normal. We need to consider how this pandemic has impacted a number of policy areas, from operating a small business to reductions in public transport and, very seriously, the basic protection of our privacy.

On this note, another constituent, Dr Moxham, raised with me the issue of the need to trace and the way our COVID registration sheets are held and what security measures are around them. When people enter venues they have to write down their names for contact tracing purposes. At the end of the day, who actually protects that data? Are all organisations complying with the federal government's Australian privacy provisions?

I believe South Australia should lead an effort with other states in terms of focusing on strategies of treatment rather than suppression and containment of COVID, which is so important. According to University of Oxford's stringency index, Victorians have been under some of the harshest and long-lasting restrictions since mid-March, with grim prospects of success due to a staged reopening pinned to daily cases falling between fortnightly figures. South Australia must not get caught in this trap, and I am quite grateful that I do not think we are, but businesses and people in South Australia are signalling a desire for the state to get back to new normal.

As Professor Fisher, chairman of the WHO Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network, says, targets as road maps are 'incredibly community-empowering'. It is really up to the community; the government cannot do everything in terms of a road back. That is why I will be foreshadowing that I will be supporting the member for Frome's amendment to see in this legislation the deadline for these measures expire at 31 December, as opposed to the flagged date of 28 March 2021, because I think it is really important that the public are constantly given a road map and an expectation setting about what is needed.

As I said in this contribution, the primacy of parliament is most important, and I do not think it hurts for the parliament to come back regularly and reflect on the laws that it passes and the powers that it gives. For the parliament to extend the Emergency Management Act for a further three months, I believe, is prudent, more so than six months. We can come back to this house in December and reflect on where we are and, by all means, if an additional three months are required in terms of the extension of the Emergency Management Act, we should be doing that, but parliament should be, as always, given the opportunity to provide scrutiny on all actions of the executive, because that is what we are here for.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (16:18): I thank members of the opposition and crossbench for their contribution to the debate. I will perhaps just reflect on a couple of matters that have been raised so that we might move to committee fairly quickly. Again, I confirm my appreciation to the opposition—and I think, listening carefully to the member for Waite's contribution, he is also supporting this legislation—for supporting the prompt debate of this matter and the passage of the bill.

I understand there is an amendment that has been tabled by the member for Frome essentially seeking to collapse the COVID-19 provisions on 31 December—in other words, at the end of three months—rather than under the current regime. I have not yet ascertained the basis of that, but can I start by saying that the purpose of this legislation is to extend it essentially for 28 days after the declaration expires or the six-month expiry date, whichever first occurs.

It may well be that the member for Frome gets his wish and that by November everything in the world is non-COVID again and we have a vaccine and everyone is happy and we will not need it past 31 December. On the other hand, if it is pretty clear that things are still difficult, we might need to call the parliament back on Christmas Eve or even the day after Boxing Day and debate it all again to extend it.

Mr Picton: We are sitting in December.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We are sitting in December, indeed, the member for Kaurna points out. However, as I say, it may be that it is not clear at that stage whether or not we need to continue it. That is part of the difficulty with this type of legislation. We acknowledge that the legislation is largely designed to be able to deal with the emergency situation of people being restricted in their movement, obviously sometimes in a very difficult financial position, at risk of losing a benefit such as their accommodation or lease for their small business, and therefore these extraordinary provisions are being made and, in this case, continued.

We are not revisiting or adding to the flavour of the circumstances upon which there is some exemption; what we are doing is extending what we have already debated. Yes, it is possible that we could be dealing with it in December. We might think that we cannot run the risk, so we will extend it at that point. Can I just say to the house that all the time here is precious and I accept that we have other important bills to progress. We think this is a sensible way of resolving it. The parliament itself offered an alternative previously by saying that it ought to have an expiry not just at the end of the declaration but at a fixed point.

We are still in a non-vaccine environment. Perhaps, if we had a vaccine and it was being distributed, then we might be in a better position to be able to give some estimates as to the time required. It may be that 31 December in that situation would be quite reasonable, but we do not have an approved vaccine for manufacture and distribution at this point. I think the world is waiting for this.

Sometimes these conditions or viruses disappear before the vaccine is needed. I think that happened with the SARS epidemic, for example: the condition seemed to disappear before it was necessary to distribute the vaccine, even though intelligent, clever people (scientists in particular) had been working to create a vaccine for that. I am not sure whether it was bacteria or a virus, but in any event it was a shocking blight on those who contracted the condition.

The government really are not in a position to accept the amendment if it is presented, but I just place that on the record as I am sure the member for Frome is listening attentively to this debate and would appreciate what our position would be on that. The second aspect relates to this question raised by the member for Kaurna, and that is: why is it necessary to have a step-down arrangement that potentially could come in place to facilitate the Public Health Act regime.

As he rightly points out, the Chief Executive of the Department for Health becomes the person who is responsible for dealing with a health-managed incident under the Public Health Act. Secondly, he raised the question of whether he would listen to the Chief Public Health Officer, who, of course, is in his employment? I do not have any reason to suggest any circumstance in which the Chief Public Health Officer's advice has not been very carefully considered and been appreciated, not just by the people of South Australia but by the government, by the police commissioner and by the Chief Executive of the Department for Health, all of whom have been working on this COVID issue, because it is a state emergency.

The emergency management declaration has been made and continued every 28 days, but it is a health issue. There is no question about why we are in a state of emergency. Why is it necessary to have a step-down? It may never be used. All we are simply indicating is that, if it is used, it would be a declaration for the purposes of the lapsing provisions of this legislation as well. So we would be bringing it into account; for example, January comes, there is a vaccine out there, it has been approved, it has been distributed and it might be in high demand.

It may be necessary to have some containment or restriction in relation to the distribution of the vaccine. It might need to first go to women and children, or to the most vulnerable or to those who are most in need—health professionals, etc. These are the sorts of things that, again, health professionals need to give us advice on. It may be that there is such a demand in this hypothetical that I am presenting that there—

Mr Picton: There will be.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think that the member for Kaurna and I would agree that it is very clear that there is likely to be world demand, that there is going to be, I hope, respectful distribution and that we do not get into a situation where we have ‘toilet paper syndrome’ again and we have people with the most money on the table getting access to this vaccine.

I think that is fairly logical, and I want to assure the house and the member for Kaurna that this is not something that is completely unknown to our health officials. They understand the importance of this. The Prime Minister has made a statement about this very clearly, that whoever gets there first has an obligation to distribute it.

We all know that the world of prescription drugs is a big industry, and it is one within which there is enormous rivalry. They produce a valuable product, especially if they get there first. To get contracts for distribution in countries is highly sought after and, in a situation like coronavirus, all around the world. I do not think we would need to be a rocket scientist to appreciate that probably the people sitting in the Congo region of Africa are not going to be at the front of the queue to be able to get access to a vaccine when it becomes available.

That is the real world but, just as we dealt with the question of testing and bringing on for assistance the pharmacists during this time, so too are our health professionals ensuring that the advice to the federal government is to invest in the research and trials that are being undertaken now, as well as the question of how this is going to be distributed equitably once we get something.

It may be that multiple organisations ultimately have this available, but there is going to be a rush. I do not think anyone is ignorant enough not to appreciate that. As to the why, it is not just a question of whether the declaration is under the Emergency Management Act or the Public Health Act. I just remind members that, when this whole thing started back in February when it became very clear, we actually went into declaration mode under the Public Health Act.

Mr Picton: For, like, two weeks.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, for a number of weeks. Ultimately, it was determined that the Emergency Management Act provisions be invoked, and as of 22 March and every month thereafter that has been revisited and reaffirmed—

Mr Picton: Why would you go back?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member calls out, 'Why would you go back?' It may well be that the state of emergency has died down but, within the envelope of the hypothetical, of continuing to manage, say, the distribution of a vaccine, it may need to have some powers under the Public Health Act. The Public Health Act, for those who read it (probably only the member for Kaurna and I have read it) it is an important piece of legislation and it gives very clear powers and very strong powers actually to authorised officers—

Mr Picton: Extraordinary.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Quite extraordinary—well, it was under your lot that it was advanced but, in any event, I think I made some fairly unhelpful comments at the time of the bill.

Mr Picton: You were against it.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, we agreed with the bill, but the powers that are given to authorised officers was always a bit of a concern to me in all sorts of legislation.

Mr Picton: I will look it up. I will look up what you said.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You should. You might recall we had a debate not that long ago in which the opposition demanded that we have penalties of two years' imprisonment for people who breach directions of the police commissioner. I would like to remind the house that under the Biosecurity Act federally they have five-year imprisonment and that under the Public Health Act, especially with deliberate contamination and others, you can go to prison for 10 years or more, so it is a pretty powerful act.

Some would say it has a penalty regime that is much more severe than that under the Emergency Management Act. Of course, the police commissioner as Coordinator went the other way and said, 'I don't necessarily want to be able to use the powers that we already have in relation to extensive fines. I want to be able to have an on-the-spot fine power,' which this parliament granted him.

Later, the opposition and others called for a two-year imprisonment term, even though they could have gone off and prosecuted under the Public Health Act if the police thought that was something that was going to be useful. They are the ones who independently make that assessment about whether they go off and use the Public Health Act or not.

Mr Picton: You're criticising what you enacted.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I am simply making the point that there are other options that were available.

Mr Picton: Why did you bring in the two years then?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Because, as the police commissioner ultimately said on radio one morning, having consistently indicated that he did not see that the nature of the cases where he would need it, he did not see any harm in that and it could be done. Certainly at that time there was an issue in relation to, I think, two persons who came in as backpackers on a train—who were at least from Victoria at the time; they may have been en route from somewhere else—and they were not imprisoned.

In fact, I think there was again criticism for them simply—according to the police commissioner's action—being taken into custody and sent back. He was not minded to take them through the courts, and that is a matter for him to make that determination. But, in any event, if a circumstance arises, and it may not, but if it does, and the circumstances under which we are being managed go from the Emergency Management Act to the Public Health Act, then the declaration under either would have the effect of the application of this act—that is, to dissolve essentially in six months' time and/or within 28 days the declaration.

Just by way of explanation, the 28 days from the date of cessation of the declaration are simply to have sufficient time to give notice to people that certain regimes are finished and obviously for the public information about that. These are matters that have been under consideration. There has been extensive consultation including, importantly, with the police commissioner and his advice as the Coordinator under the Emergency Management Act.

The other matters that were raised, which I will just touch on, related to comments made by the member for Kaurna about the borders. I think the closure that has existed, at least with Victoria, is something he has commended as being responsible, at least in part—I think 'bedrock' was the word he used—for ultimately keeping South Australians safe, and I agree with him. I think that it has been necessary in a circumstance where Victorians have been in a very dire circumstance and, ultimately, it has been necessary to have some restrictions across the borders.

Clive Palmer takes a somewhat different view: he thinks he has been deprived of all sorts of benefits he should have in operating his businesses in Western Australia and Queensland and has taken the matter to the High Court. I think he has lost round 1, but he has proceeded with another set of proceedings in terms of his industrial position.

Interestingly, whilst the Prime Minister has been very clear about the importance of protecting the Australian Constitution in not restricting trade or, what is it—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That's it—intercourse, yes. It is an unusual word. I was trying to think what it was. Obviously to be able to traverse the borders was a key tenet of setting up the Australian Constitution so that we would no longer have state customs and taxes and things of that nature for things coming in and out of our regions as a colony. We became states, we grew up and we established the Australian Constitution, and it is an important tenet of that.

It is also important that as a state we are able to protect our citizens and, in a health situation such as we are facing, clearly the Federal Court of Australia, which was asked to make a determination in the Palmer matter on a question of facts, was satisfied there was justification in border restrictions. I am summarising this now but, largely, they had to be commensurate with the risk, and you could not just shut down the borders under any circumstances.

On the advice I have received to date, the police commissioner's directions, as State Coordinator, in relation to travel restrictions and the number of people in public gatherings, have been within the envelope of what is acceptable in the necessary protection of South Australian citizens. We have had a sensible approach to it, and I am proud of that.

Finally, the member for Kaurna raised the economic stimulus. It is absolutely true that, as a result of the initiatives to keep our health protected, South Australians have experienced sanctions that have resulted in financial loss. For some people, that has been devastating. We have heard from the member for Waite about some people he represents who have been unable to transfer from one state or country to another. It has caused hurt and hardship, and I understand that; there is no question that it has been a difficult time for a lot of people.

The financial impost is one that continues to be protected under this legislation, including the protection of residential tenants from eviction or increase of rent. It is similar for eviction in relation to commercial tenancies within certain circumstances. The member for Kaurna complained of there being no new initiatives, but one was announced today. I do not know if the member for Kaurna missed this, but there has been a doubling of the land tax reduction for commercial tenancies; the landlord will enjoy a 50 per cent reduction in their land tax liability on the basis that they transfer it for the benefit of the tenant. Of course some do not have a tenant now, because the businesses operating there simply have not been able to trade and have had to close.

I was walking down Norwood Parade early this morning, obviously not at the same time the Premier was already awake—4 o'clock I heard; it was a little bit later than that. I was walking down Norwood Parade and I noticed there was a florist shop that was completely empty that had been there for some years. I thought, 'That's a shame.' This is the sort of casualty of these circumstances, and so we need to do anything we can to continue to give people some protection.

If they do not have a tenant, then that landlord, for example, would be able to make an application if they qualify, of course, to get the 50 per cent reduction in their land tax. Even if they do not have a tenant to pass the benefit on to, they can have that benefit. It is an important initiative of the Treasurer. Treasurers do not usually give away a lot, but he is being very generous at the moment, and our government has made a commitment to continue to make provision to be able to outline measures, including infrastructure projects and the like.

These initiatives will continue to be required for some time to come. Obviously, we are grateful for the HomeBuilder initiative. That has been a massive injection into the housing industry here. I think it is a fabulous opportunity for young people, especially if it is their first home, to be able to have $40,000 on the table—$15,000 from the South Australian government and $25,000 from the federal government. Interest rates are low and property is available. What a golden era of opportunity for our young people. Of course, the JobKeeper and JobSeeker initiatives have been well received and are absolutely necessary to cushion the damage and ensure that we protect people in the workforce so that they come back.

I know there is a lot of heartache out there. Certainly, those of us who have travelled around the state in recent times in the regional areas—and every week that we are not in parliament our Premier is out somewhere all across the state: on the West Coast or up north, or down in the South-East—have spoken to people in tourism enterprises and hospitality, which were frankly smashed for three months in the first half of this year. They are getting back on their feet, and they are just describing to us that their July turnover has been the best July ever in the operation of their business.

Of course, they have come off a very difficult period and their workforce has been kept alive by federal JobKeeper payments. Nevertheless, that is a really encouraging sign, and I place on the record my appreciation to all South Australians, young and old, who are taking the opportunity while we are under these travel restrictions to enjoy our own state, our own parks, our own regional areas and give some life and income to our regional towns. I thank them very much for doing that.

We will continue to be sensitive to the needs in that regard and do whatever we can, as a priority of this government, to ensure that we retrain people where we can for future and alternate employment and, secondly, ensure that we have them back in employment or an opportunity to establish their own businesses. So a big appreciation for the people of South Australia. They have done a stellar job so far.

We have a long way to go, there is no question about that. I am immensely proud to work with a Premier who is highly regarded at the federal level of the national council of premiers. They call them first ministers these days, but I do not like that description. In any event, our premiers and leaders around the country, together with the Prime Minister, have really worked around the clock and ensured that we have been kept safe. None of that would have been possible without the support and compliance of those in the community. We have taken them with us; the journey is not over, but this bill will assist us to get them through without being poorer or, of course, harmed more.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr PICTON: Let me acknowledge, Chair, that, despite the change in the Speakership, it is great to have you continuing in the Deputy Speakership as the Attorney and I and you continue our constant interactions through the parliament. I have a few questions, starting with clause 1. I mentioned in my speech (I do not believe it was touched on by the Attorney in her reply) something the opposition is seeking: I do think it is appropriate, if parliament gives its permission for this to continue for another six months, that it should have some oversight of the powers that have been granted over the past six months—that is, what powers have been used, how many times they have been used, what are the circumstances in which they have been used and which powers have not been used.

This is something that we have been raising since last week, and we have not had a response. I am hoping that the Attorney today will be able to provide a detailed list in terms of what has been used and the circumstances in which it has been used, or at the very least will be able to do so between the houses.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I advise the member that we are using all our best endeavours to provide the data requested. For example, I think that there are some powers that are easy to identify; that is, has there been a detention of a child necessary for the purposes of providing safety to them, for example, in an illegal gathering or a gathering of numbers that breach? My understanding is that that had not been used, at least when I last inquired about it.

There will be others that have been used an incredible number of times, and there will be others, for example, clarifying the protection of police officers as authorised officers having immunity. We cannot really tell, because somebody might have otherwise tried to sue them if it were not for the immunity. It is being done as best we can. Things like fines—that is, people who are given on-the-spot fines—will be able to be identified when those things are all collated, but I assure the member that we are trying to collate all those things now. You will have that information as soon as we have it.

There is an area in my department for which I have oversight; that is, there has to be a monthly report by Mr Bruggemann, who I think is the person we have appointed under this legislation, to report any occasions when somebody who has a disability is put into secure care or into some detention in a confined environment—for example, someone with a disability who does not perhaps understand that they could cause harm to someone else if they hug them, which would otherwise be a normal part of their behaviour.

That is the sort of situation for which we were called upon to make the provisions that we did. There is an obligation to report to me—I think it is monthly, but it might be every two months—the occasions when that has been used. There have been occasions on which it has been used, and this person has approved that process and then provided a report to me. So we are getting it together as soon as we can, and you will get it as soon as we can provide it.

If there is anything specific in relation to these areas that is not just as used—because there may be a particular area of interest that the member would like to know specifically—we will try to identify, in a general way, where there may have been application of new provisions under this. For example, I could not give you a summary of all the different persons and/or the numbers for the witnessing of documents by a nurse or a senior public servant who otherwise would not have had the power to be a witness to a signatory, as we just do not have that data. Anyway, we will try to get as much together as we can.

Mr PICTON: I wonder whether the Attorney can outline if anybody outside the government has been consulted on this legislation. This is a situation where originally this was an emergency piece of legislation and obviously consultation would have been very limited in that scenario, but now that the Attorney has known that this is coming for six months, to continue or vary this legislation in some way, was there any consultation process whatsoever that she undertook? If so, who was consulted and if not, why was some process not undertaken?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, certainly people were in government during the development of the bill. As things get closer, in parliament resuming we need to be able to identify what we might still need to extend. As Attorney-General, I have had power under the act to cancel some of these. I think the member, on behalf of the opposition, has been provided with a list of those. Two I can think of relate to special changes in relation to the Auditor-General and what he needs to be able to provide. I think that includes some direction potentially by the Treasurer. My understanding is it has not been used in all that time and I received an indication from the Treasurer that that was no longer required. So, by regulation, we have dissolved that and we are back to the standard Auditor-General's act as such.

That is the first thing. There have been some things that have no longer been required so we have cancelled them. The obligation, for example, to receive and table documents within seven days here in the parliament was not necessary to keep going because, of course, the parliament has continued and we have not needed to cancel. We have worked out how people can be seated and spread out so that we protect ourselves. It was not necessary so that has been cancelled.

The people who, as of yesterday, were sent a copy of the final bill were the Chief Justice, the Chief Judge, the Chief Magistrate, the Law Society, the Legal Services Commission, the ALRM, the Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Guardian for Children and Young People, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Commissioner for Victims' Rights and, my understanding is, obviously other people within government, including the Commissioner of Police, who has, of course, been consulted about all these matters.

They were all sent a final copy of the draft bill. It was approved late last week and, as you know, you were sent a copy shortly thereafter, on Friday, as the opposition were to be provided with a copy of the bill as soon as possible.

Mr PICTON: I am wondering whether there were any requests for powers by agencies within government that were not picked up and included in this legislation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Do you mean the original bill or this bill?

Mr PICTON: Both.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is a bit hard for me to remember what was asked for last time. I will have to give that some thought. I do not think so. There were requests made during the course of the original debate about extending the authorised signatories on a permanent basis. There were requests made by people such as the Institute of Conveyancers, which now as the Minister for Planning I have had a bit more to do with and I am in charge of the Registrar-General and a few other generals, so I am learning even more about those aspects now. There has certainly been discussion in the banking world and I recall the Institute of Conveyancers looking at how we might streamline the signature and witnessing requirements on electronic documents.

As the member may know, we are leaders in the provision of the e-conveyancing and we now do not even use certificates of title anymore at all. There was a period when we were in transition. We are now on to the wonderful technical challenges of interoperability in consultation with the ACCC, etc. So we are in a new era now in relation to conveyancing. Unsurprisingly, with that we are being lobbied to either extend COVID initiatives and/or extend to facilitate the usual quicker, better, cheaper processes that go with electronic transactions. They are under consideration.

I think as I mentioned in the original debate, whilst some of these are not urgent because of COVID, they are nevertheless good ideas. We are collating them and, in due course, the government are likely to present to this parliament initiatives which they think have been of merit. I repeat the same offer that I made on the last occasion: if any members have proposals to consider either extending a COVID initiative which has been very useful in the community and/or other similar aspects, then I am more than happy to take them under consideration.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr PICTON: I just pick up that point the Attorney made about her offer. My recollection of when we discussed one of these bills before the break was that the Attorney said she was considering a process by which some of these measures might be made permanent. I was expecting there to be some discussion or proposition that maybe some of these measures would end, some would be continued in a temporary form and some she would be proposing to make permanent.

Yet we now have this very short bill, which probably did not take a lot of drafting, to say, 'Just continue it all for six more months.' Why has there not been that work in terms of making that decision in relation to some of the conveyancing? I think the example the Attorney used previously was about some of the court processes, where some things could be done electronically. Rather than just another six-month continuation of those processes, I would have thought that if they were sensible measures it would be sensible to look at adopting them on a permanent basis.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have confirmed that there are in fact some things that have dropped off or have been changed. Here we are, on 8 September 2020, and we are still living in a COVID pandemic. If we were near the end, we might have been coming to you and saying, 'We really think, within 28 days of the end of the declaration this year, we can close off and we can all get back to normal and we might be ready to start talking about other initiatives.' I can tell you that converting some initiatives through COVID to permanent ones is something that we have under consideration.

If you have anything that you would like to add to that, please send it on now. There will obviously be an opportunity further down the track, but we are happy for you to endorse that. You and other members of parliament are probably receiving requests from people, organisations and stakeholders in the community, as we are, saying, 'We think it's a good idea; do you think you could get this through the parliament?' We are open to useful considerations.

As I said, I think there have been three things that I am aware of: providing inspections for residential tenancies only via AV unless exceptional circumstances; the provision to apply for certain water and sewerage charges for sporting clubs—we do not need that anymore; the Treasurer's Instructions on financial audit and what is to be audited by the Auditor-General have all gone; and the tabling of reports before parliament, which I have mentioned.

We are disposing of the things that we do not need anymore, but we are open to long-term consideration. Here we are, in September, and we are still in a pandemic. We have not sat down and given the greatest attention to what would be beneficial permanently, but we are starting to get a list. I am sure we will continue to have more requests as we go through it.

Mr PICTON: We have both acknowledged that this is likely to continue in a pre-vaccine COVID situation for some time. As I outlined in my speech, the vast majority of the decision-making at the moment is through the Emergency Management Act by the State Coordinator, Grant Stevens. It seems that the government are using a vehicle which, while the pandemic was obviously one of the things that was envisaged when that act was passed, I am sure that once you are in the reality of it, is slightly different from when you were drafting it.

Therefore, one of the things the government has sought to do is bring in a Transition Committee to form around the State Coordinator and presumably provide him with advice in his role in doing that. Now we are essentially entering this long-haul stage, where the emergency things that had to be put in place quickly have been done and we are looking at where we go for the next six to 12 months, I am curious as to why the government, if the Transition Committee is important, has not enshrined it in legislation so it is clear about the powers and membership and role of the Transition Committee and the establishment of the architecture of the long-term COVID response now that, six months into this, I am sure everybody has learnt a lot more than where we were in January or February.

Has any thought been given to creating a COVID architecture and structure around that, or is the government just continuing to use the Emergency Management Act or, as we will talk about shortly, the potential for the Public Health Act as purely the vehicle?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To take the last question first, clearly we have considered the Public Health Act because that is why it is in the bill. The public health officials foresee a time when we may only need to use that. We may not need to use it at all. It might just come out of it from emergency management. The Coordinator says, 'We don't need it.' The public health people say, 'We don't need anything,' and we do not need to have any directions made under them at all. But clearly we have given it some thought, otherwise it would not be in there.

I suppose the question is whether you are glass half full or a glass half empty person. I am a glass half full person. From what I just heard, the member for Kaurna is a glass half empty person. I am not resigned to the fact that we are in this for some sort of forever long haul and that we are never going to get out of this situation. We are proposing something here to the parliament to keep initiatives that are restrictive on a lot of people, and some of them are to provide some release for six months.

We have not given up on the fact that there may well be a vaccine. It may be months away. It may be a year away, I do not know, but we are not going to be asking people to be locked up, be restricted, have all these sorts of imposts for the long term. We are wanting to understand—

Mr Picton interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You can have all sorts of committees if you like. We have plenty of committees, do not worry, and we have all sorts of departments working on, firstly, what they think is good to keep from COVID, like the courts. I have spoken before about the use of AVL, ringing in to chambers for telephone adjournments, using prisoners and police officers to give evidence and/or statements to courts via AVL. These are great initiatives. Down the track, I think we can work out how we might use them better, but at the moment we are working on the basis that there is still an emergency.

We still need to give priority to health, but there is a corresponding economic challenge, and our Premier is right on it. I do not know how clear I can be on that. We are not wanting to have an envelope of restriction and protection for any longer than we need it, and we want the public of South Australia to get on with life as they knew it. It is not in our hands when that is going to be, but we think it needs to be incremental at this point as to what we wrap around it. Hence, I have listened carefully to the advice of the member for Kaurna and others to the parliament last time.

They wanted to have a clear end point. They did not want to just drip along with these monthly applications. We want to have an end point. We have put it in this bill as an end point. We have made provision in the circumstance a public health declaration may need to be made. I want to assure the house that this government and its agencies are all the time working in relation to how we can best protect the public in this area and what initiatives we can process and provide for them, but also not to have them so restricted that they are suffocated by this horrible situation that we are in with COVID.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr PICTON: In her summing up, the Attorney spoke about the Public Health Act potentially being used in the circumstance in which you had a vaccine and you were working out how to distribute it. Firstly, as an aside, we need to have a plan in place now. We need to be working on that plan because that is going to be a very complex piece of work. It is not a hypothetical situation. We need to make sure that there is an established plan for who should get it, how they should get it and the order in which they should get it.

The Attorney was saying that you might transfer it from the Emergency Management Act to the Public Health Act in the circumstance in which it was just about the distribution of the vaccine. However, from a legal standpoint, I do not see that there is any barrier in which that transfer could not happen tomorrow and it could not be transferred from Grant Stevens to Chris McGowan tomorrow.

So I am seeking the Attorney to provide some clarity to the parliament and the people of South Australia: what are the criteria by which it would be transferred from the Emergency Management Act and the State Coordinator to the Public Health Act and the chief executive of the department? As I said in my speech, I think South Australians highly regard the work that has been done by the State Coordinator, Grant Stevens, and I think that they would be seeking the government's guidance on what circumstances you would want to change something that has worked so well so far.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is difficult to give you criteria because we do not know what the future is going to hold, but can I give you this situation: I would think that it would be unrealistic to expect that we would be coming out of an emergency management situation while we still have border restrictions. We need to have the authorised officers as police officers to be able to actually manage that issue. It is a significant role that the commissioner, as Coordinator, has been coordinating that together with his other duties, as you have said.

Obviously, his view in relation to that and the continuation of a declaration of the Emergency Management Act would need to be considered. He may say, 'We're now at a stage where there are no further restrictions. Restrictions on public gatherings are no longer required, and so the implementation of management of public coming together and/or travelling is no longer necessary.' It may be his advice that we do not need it. But I could not imagine there would be any situation, while we have travel restrictions interstate and we also have public gathering restrictions, that we will be moving out of emergency management anytime soon.

The second example is health. In those weeks that we were under the Public Health Act, a couple who were the parents of a young woman, who I think was a university student returning to South Australia, were detained under the Public Health Act at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, from memory, to ensure that they would not be contaminating others. They were put in mandatory isolation—

Mr Picton: I think that was even before the section 87.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

Mr Picton: That was by Nicola as the CPHO.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, my recollection is that was under the Public Health Act that that power was—

Mr Picton: Different section.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That's true, to the extent that the chief executive hadn't come into operation at that stage. The Public Health Act, which has powers to detain people—a bit like, the member would recall, there were students who returned from China some years ago, I think it was in relation to SARS or bird flu or something; I cannot remember which one of those, but one of them. They were children on school trips, and when they returned there was this question of their being kept in isolation. The health act was used to require them to stay. If I recall correctly, they were not kept all together. They were then sent home and had to be kept in home isolation, but definitely the Public Health Act was invoked to manage that situation.

Whether it is a necessary power to be exercised, whether it is an incident that is determined then for a declaration to be made by the chief executive (which we used earlier this year), or whether we move into the Emergency Management Act declaration process (which we are currently under) depends on a number of factors. There is not a sort of set of criteria from one to another. I think the longest time we have ever used the Emergency Management Act is four hours, which was the breakdown of the electricity transmission a few years ago.

This is a pretty new experience, certainly for our government, and we are testing some of this legislation really for the first time in its prolonged use. If you think there are areas, or any of the members think there are areas where there needs to be consideration for a release from the current protection—or not necessarily directions of the commissioner, because there is a process where you can seek exemption through his panel, but in relation to whether we should be staying in or out of the declaration process—we are happy to hear from members of parliament. Obviously, they have their ear to the ground in their electorates and they hear from stakeholders as well.

So far I have not had anyone write to me from the parliament on the question of being relieved from the Emergency Management Act structure—that is, the declaration process that we are currently under—but if there is someone of the view that we should be then I am happy to hear from them.

Mr PICTON: Given that, obviously, we are constantly reviewing this legislative framework, and as the Attorney notes she was a critic of some aspects of the South Australian Public Health Act when it was passed almost a decade ago—I think at various points in debates this year she has suggested that I had some connection with that act. I was not working for the South Australian—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Weren't you an adviser at that stage?

Mr PICTON: No, I was working for the commonwealth government at that time when that passed. And so, given her concerns she has raised about that, and I think given some of the concerns the chief executive himself has raised about whether he is the right person to be managing a pandemic, I wonder whether any thought has been given to whether that act should be amended, and given, I think, the huge trust and confidence the people of South Australia have in the Chief Public Health Officer, whether, with respect to section 87, the powers should rest with the Chief Public Health Officer rather than the Chief Executive of the Department for Health and Wellbeing?

I honestly cannot attest to why a decision was made a decade ago that those powers should rest with the chief executive of a department rather than an experienced, qualified medical practitioner, a public health expert: the Chief Public Health Officer. It stands in stark difference from the remainder of that piece of legislation in which almost all the other powers rest with the Chief Public Health Officer, including, as the Attorney has noted, some very serious powers to detain people, some very serious powers to require people to isolate, test and a whole range of other things, which all rest with the Chief Public Health Officer, but this power rests with the Chief Executive of the Department for Health and Wellbeing.

Given that the Attorney is now bringing this provision in to enable the South Australian Public Health Act to continue as our vehicle for managing COVID and all the other associated connections to it, has any thought been given to changing that provision to allow those powers to rest with the Chief Public Health Officer and not the chief executive?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not by me and not by our government, but the health minister may have received something to this effect. Can I just say that I am not aware of any situation where the chief executive of the health department, Dr McGowan, has actually raised any concern about his being the nominated person under the act.

It may well be that he thinks it is a very good idea that we have been under the Emergency Management Act for the last eight months or so, but I have not received anything and nothing has been put to me to suggest that we should change the nominated person in charge under the Public Health Act if a declaration is made under that act. I can only assume that the public health officer, in the structure of the hierarchy of the health department, sits under the chief executive of the department.

I think it is fair to say that not every emergency in relation to Health relates to public health. It may be that we are dealing with a circumstance where there is a different kind of health issue. I think of something initially like the AIDS epidemic that, of course, transferred to certain people in the community: some babies who had blood transfusions died, you may or may not recall; obviously people who had same-sex relationships appeared to be particularly vulnerable; and people who did not use condoms in other sexual relationships. These were all vulnerable groups in the community.

In relation to how we managed it, the law was changed to ensure that only Australian blood was used through the Red Cross for blood transfusions. We used to import blood from the United States and that law changed and the government of the day entered into a contract with the Red Cross to take only blood from Australians, and it had to be tested so that there was no HIV-positive in the blood.

All those laws were changed and they possibly had the benefit of a much broader health issue rather than just the contamination of a contagious condition that might be in a public health environment. This time around it is clearly public health. We have a contagious disease or condition, virus—whatever it is, ugly as it is—but we do not have any antidote to it, we have no vaccine and we are trying to do the best we can. It has translated now into everyone's life and livelihood and so we are in that emergency management period, but we cannot assume that all health issues relating to an emergency—

Mr Picton: Under the Public Health Act?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Even under the Public Health Act. There will be an extended area of things like qualifications and who we might bring in. These are all things that I think are just immediately outside the question of whether you have a virus at large. I think the most logical explanation the chief executive has been given is that he or she in that position is at the top of the ladder as an executive officer of the department and, of course, they will take advice in this case from the senior public health officer.

She has been excellent. She was only in the job I think for a matter of weeks before the whole pandemic hit, so it has been fantastic. The public have confidence in her, I believe, and she has served us very well. But, in any event, perhaps you could contact minister Hill or somebody else who put the bill through in the first place.

Mr Picton interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I am just saying who put it through at the time as to why the decision was made to appoint the chief executive of the health department under the Public Health Act and not the public health—

Mr Picton: You could change the act.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just saying to you: I have not considered it, I have not been asked for it, I have not had a chief executive complain about it, I have not been requested by the public health officer to appoint her in it and, fifthly, he is the most senior person in the department so, no, I have not.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

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

Amendment No 1 [Brock–1]—

Page 2, line 23 [clause 4(2), inserted paragraph (b)]—Delete '28 March 2021' and substitute:

31 December 2020

The reason for this is that I, like the Attorney, am a glass half full person. I am not a glass half empty person. I also want to be able to get people back into the community and get businesses in there, and give confidence and certainty to the community out there. Professor Nicola Spurrier is doing an extremely good job, as is all the South Australian community in particular.

My motion deletes the words '28 March 2021' and inserts '31 December 2020'. The reason for that is that I do not believe giving a six-month window sends the right message to our community out there. Having it back to 31 December 2020 means it is basically three months. If at that particular point we need an extension, the parliament could be recalled; we are still sitting in December, and we could extend it from that.

I do not want to get the wrong impression out there. We are really on top of this here. I am a glass half full person, and I want that positivity out there for the business community in particular.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for Frome for his explanation. To confirm our position, it would be wonderful if, come 31 December, we were out of all this. On the advice we have to date, there is no vaccine. There are some coming through the system that are being tested, and that is fantastic, but we are a while away and, therefore, from all the advice we have received, it is six months or such lesser period, as within 28 days of a declaration closing.

It may be that by December we do not need to have restrictions on people moving across the state any more, and the police commissioner says, 'Look, I don't need to manage this anymore. It is really back to a health incident stage and you can appoint the chief executive under the Public Health Act.' We could then spend the next few months, or six months, under that, I do not know.

I cannot foresee that, but I hear the member's point: that is, let us try to have a demonstration. I think the demonstration to the public is that, realistically, we may need this for up to 6 months. It may be shorter, and we are providing for it to be shorter or for a lesser period, in terms of giving them some encouragement. When the Victorian Premier came out and announced 12 months of shutdown I thought—

Mr Picton: No, it was a state of emergency.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: A state of emergency, where there are severe restrictions. If I were in Victoria I would just about be slashing my wrists; it would be a terrible situation. You extinguish any hope for people in that situation. However, I think he has remedied that.

I think we have come to a compromise, on the best advice we have. It does allow for a shorter period. If the member is right and we need it only until December that would be great; it can lapse then anyway. However, we are not optimistic of that.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Attorney, for argument's sake if we are nearing that particular period, November or December, and we still needed to extend it we could do the same thing in the December sitting of parliament. I certainly hear what you are saying, but I do not want to give the wrong impression to the business community out there; I want to give them positivity. If this amendment does not go through then the messaging going out there has to be very clear that if something happens before that there is a 28-day window.

Mr PICTON: I rise to speak in relation to the amendment moved by the member for Frome, and I thank him for moving it. As I mentioned in my second reading speech, this is obviously something our caucus has not had the opportunity to consider; we are still waiting for briefings and information in relation to the bill in its entirety. I suspect this will be a matter we will consider between the houses before the next sitting week, so we are not in a position today to be able to support these amendments.

Having said that, I can see the logic in many of the arguments put by the member for Frome. In particular, I do not see the logic in the Attorney's statement that we would have to meet the day before New Year's Day to discuss this when we are meeting in December anyway. No doubt we would have a further opportunity to be able to extend it before then.

Obviously, we have taken a position through this pandemic that we have been supportive of the legislation. We are minded to continue to provide that in relation to this piece of legislation and in relation to the extension being sought. However, we would seek that the government provide some more rationale behind how six months was arrived at and why a shorter period would not be sufficient.

Ms BEDFORD: I just want to clarify, Attorney: you are saying that if the situation is terrific and really good in December you are quite happy for us not to use these powers and to revert to the health powers. Is that what you are saying?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not exactly; it is not me—if the commissioner were not to seek that cabinet extend the declaration position, which is every 28 days, so that his powers operate and this envelope of restrictions and supports are continued. If he were to come and leave that and recommend that to cabinet and the Chief Public Health Officer, and all the groups that come together to talk about these things, within 28 days of the cessation of that declaration this bill would allow for this to basically lapse.

Alternatively, if it goes into a public health declaration and that lapses it will also be a declaration for the purposes of this whole thing collapsing. So it allows for that. It does not necessarily mean it is going to happen—it may be that everything is clear and we do not need it at all—but the best advice we have is that there would be a period of time necessary to operate. The federal initiatives are also in this area, such as JobKeeper, etc. They have also been extended. These health officials are advising state and federal governments. There is a national body that Dr Nicola Spurrier works on and I think they link up every day, so there is constant monitoring of what we might need.

At the moment, we are advised that it is appropriate that the emergency management declaration process remain in place which triggers the Coordinator, being the police commissioner. It may be that we will not need anything at all at the end of that. It may be that we do use the health side of it, but if the health side is used then again it would have this automatic collapse. We are mindful of the parliament's previous insistence that there be a time frame on this and not just a declaration expiry. We have tried to accommodate that as well as the health officials from whom we are getting advice.

Ms BEDFORD: Again, just a point of clarification: as a member of the government, you obviously know what is going on every day. I am not sure what happens with the opposition and how often they are updated but, as a crossbencher, I do not know anything about what you are doing, and I want to try to understand how you are going to bring us along with you and keep us informed, rather than just reading the newspaper.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I alert the member to the fact that we have a daily COVID update advice via the library service here. There is also a website we have where you can have an app to get yourself COVID updates. Of course, with the more comprehensive material if you want to you can check online how many cases there are in Nigeria. The reality is that there is public health information and the declarations are all online because they are regularly updated.

All our heads are spinning with the frequency of the changes of some of these things, but they are the times we are living in. There is the balance between what is necessary and what is needed for the safety of people and the general principle of trying not to restrict people other than is necessary. As a result, there are daily link-ups, there is the task force on Tuesday mornings, and on Friday mornings are meetings of the federal executive, and there are so many phone calls between the Premier's office and the Prime Minister's office to try to keep abreast of all this.

I imagine that the average person would go—I do not read the daily details of the directions, but obviously, as a cabinet member, I am much more privy to what is coming up. However, from the public's point of view, most of them are going to find out when it affects them. They might ring you as the local member and say, 'I need to know whether my gathering of 15 is allowed,' or, 'Can I have 50 people at my father's funeral?' or whatever.

You have a dual situation: firstly, there are electronic means by which you can stay in touch; secondly, all of us as local members get these inquiries, and as best we can we try to navigate the information to provide to them. As for the daily decisions the premiers are consulted on, this is a very full-time job at the minute. I want to assure the member that if she needs further information I am happy to try to link her up so that she gets daily editions of what is out there.

Ms BEDFORD: Thank you, Attorney. Of course, I am aware of the daily updates, but I am still very much getting it from behind the decision-making process. I want to put on the record that, as a member of parliament, it would be nice if we were all involved in some of the discussions going on at perhaps an earlier stage of the proceedings. I understand that you are all working under very difficult circumstances, but it is very much top-down and we are reacting to whatever you say. It would just be easier if we had a different sort of mechanism. I do not need you to respond; it is just a thought.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have one further assurance to the house, and that is that of course government have to take the responsibility of managing this issue. The issue in the course of this discussion—that is, early notice of what is being proposed—is that, as it turned out in light of the circumstances we are still in, we have not brought back to the parliament any comprehensive detail or new initiatives that we want to expand or make permanent.

We are actually dealing with just an extension. I would see it as fairly slim or narrow in its application. We are not introducing some new concept that we are asking the parliament to endorse. We are simply saying that everything you have endorsed before, except where we have found it unnecessary to continue and where it has dropped off by regulation, we are continuing for the next six months. There is no level of complexity in this, other than the fact that, based on the advice, we are going to need it to continue.

I repeat the offer that I have previously made to the parliament, and I did so again earlier in this debate; that is, if there are particular areas of request from a member to extend a current initiative under COVID on a permanent basis or to introduce other initiatives that have already come to us, several of which I have referred to in the committee, we are continuing to collate that. But there is no way that we would have a situation in which we are dealing with a bill in a hurry, first day back at parliament, if it were going to be a much broader circumstance. All we are doing at this stage is asking for a continuation.

Mr DULUK: Attorney, you may have covered this before and I may have missed it. In picking the date of 28 March 2021 for the six-month extension, did the government seek advice on what a three-month extension would look like? Why was six months chosen over, say, three months or nine months?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that three months was considered and that six months was settled upon on the advice that we received, largely because of the commercial leasing arrangements and what protections there are. As you understand, we have a no eviction, no rent increase-type scenario. We announced that with some extra land tax relief today.

The residential tenancy is slightly different. As the Attorney-General, I would apparently need to continue the operation and would have power to do that past 3 January. That may be the logical date to conclude that, but at the moment we are trying to balance and accommodate the fact that JobKeeper and JobSeeker have been extended in different forms. I cannot remember all the detail of that, but that is over this period of time. We needed to accommodate the commercial leasing mostly, so we needed to go past three months.

Mr DULUK: Did the State Coordinator and the Chief Medical Officer both agree that six months was appropriate or, for example, was the State Coordinator of the view that a three-month rollover was more appropriate than, say, six months?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I just clarify something. I was just advised that they did not formally consider the three months; my understanding is that there was no request for it. Not that we are advised. I am not aware of that. Certainly the final matters considered for this bill were also around the fact that we had this 12-month announcement in Victoria, which of course was really quite distressing for people, so we were conscious of that as well. There are a number of factors with these things.

Treasury people around the country were also meeting on these issues to try to sort out what protections and provision they could make for commercial leases—they only met a week or so ago—so we were trying to consider a whole lot of different factors in that regard. If we can be relieved of this, and if there is a need for it to go past the six months, obviously we need to come back here in May or June and say, 'The situation is going to wind up soon,' or we will be saying that we will have to introduce another bill to consider extension again. I am hoping it is the former.

Mr DULUK: I think halfway through that we answered each other's question. Were the State Coordinator and the Chief Public Health Officer of the same view that six months was appropriate?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Both those people sit on the Transition Committee, and my understanding is that the bill and the detail were put to the Transition Committee. Who discussed that in those circumstances, I do not know, but both those persons are on the Transition Committee.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: Given that the amendment was negatived, member for Frome, what do you want to do with your second amendment?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Not proceed, Mr Chair, because if the first one did not get through it means the second one is not going to be relevant.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr PICTON: Now that the government is seeking to limit the protection from rent increases to those suffering hardship, what processes are being put in place to streamline hardship assessments where there is disagreement on this issue?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: While my adviser is just getting ready, I will indicate that this is an issue that is under the ultimate sanction or protection of the SACAT. Justice Judy Hughes is the President of the SACAT and I have had a number of conversations with her during this COVID matter as to how we might best manage the protection of tenants in this situation.

As her court is the ultimate arbiter of disputes relating to this, it was important that she explain to me firstly how financial hardship currently works for ordinary cases in her court in relation to residential tenancies matters. This is something they are very experienced at, and they already have capacity to take those matters into account and make determinations on them. That is under the normal rule in relation to tenancies.

The initial provision for protections of tenancy eviction and rent increase did not have a financial hardship clause in it, not because they were not competent to regulate those matters or adjudicate on those matters, but because we had a blanket announcement by the Prime Minister to say, 'Nobody is going to be thrown out of their apartment.' They are not going to have a rent increase, irrespective of whether they lost their job from COVID or whatever.

I suppose as part of the continuation of these initiatives in balancing the situation against the emergency that we faced, and now as people are coming back into employment and the like, the general feeling was that the financial hardship clause should be in there for these cases as well. They have been given six months of protection because everyone was very keen to make sure that people were not exploited in this situation, but now we have moved to the financial hardship clause. I think perhaps the Treasurer originally looked at this. Let me correct something that I just said: it was not in relation to the eviction; it was in relation to the rent increases—

Mr Picton: You didn't get something wrong?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Absolutely. This part only relates to the rent increase as distinct from the eviction; sorry, I was suggesting it was for both. So, yes, they are well schooled in being able to handle those. There have not been as many, going by the conversations I have had with Judge Hughes, as perhaps we expected.

Hopefully, that is a reflection on the fact that people are doing the right thing in wanting to keep their tenants, understanding the circumstances they are in, negotiating some alternative arrangements and doing the right thing as best they can. Let's face it, I suppose they are looking to have the continuation of tenancy of good tenants if they can. That has been very encouraging.

Similarly, in relation to the commercial tenancies, there have only been a handful of cases that have even gone to the Magistrates Court to be determined that have not been agreed to privately or with the assistance of the Small Business Commissioner, who then has to certify if someone wants to have an assessment done by the Magistrates Court. I hope that makes it clear.

Mr PICTON: Thank you, and thank you for the assistance of your adviser. When I was speaking before, I thought there were a lot of people watching, but of course they were all the advisers for the various government departments involved in this legislation. I then went into the corridor and they were everywhere. I believe the collective noun for bureaucrats is a shuffle of bureaucrats, according to the internet. We have had a shuffle of public servants here today, so thank you for your assistance. The second question on this is: what was the change in total residential tenancy eviction numbers from April to September, compared with previous years?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have that information here but we will take it on notice. Just to be clear, it is the period from the commencement of the legislation to the period before? It is much less of a period, that is all.

Mr PICTON: Those six months compared with previous years.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The six months previously? Alright. Basically from March to September this year and then for the preceding six months? Do you want March to September of the previous year?

Mr PICTON: You would probably want to do the same period because there are probably seasonal factors.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is right. So you are really looking for a comparison between March and September 2019 compared with March to September—

Mr PICTON: Correct.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We will see if that data is available. We will have to inquire to the SACAT. And it is the number of evictions in residential matters?

Mr PICTON: That is right: total residential eviction numbers.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: For any reason?

Mr PICTON: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: One other thing I will add to it is that the other evidence which may be provided in relation to the criteria for determining a person in financial hardship is a copy of the application for a JobSeeker payment, evidence about why the person is or is not entitled to a JobKeeper payment—this would usually be written communication from the employer—a copy of bank statements and a copy of applications to withdraw super early. I hope that helps.

Mr PICTON: Thanks to the Attorney for taking that on notice. Perhaps you will take this one on notice for completeness. Was there an increase in evictions for reasons other than non-payment of rent during the emergency declaration period? Could we get the figures on that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, so I am clear, total evictions for the six months, 2019 to 2020—I have that—then, was there an increase of that cohort in the number of people who were evicted as a result of not paying their rent or an increase?

Mr PICTON: No, for reasons other than non-payment of rent.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I see, like wrecking the place or something else. We will try to get that.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (17:46): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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