HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-03-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

South Australian Public Health (Controlled Notifiable Conditions) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (15:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Public health officials around the globe are currently dealing with the COVID-19 outbreak, known to many as coronavirus, and South Australia is no exception. As the world prepares for the possibility of the situation escalating, this bill that is being today introduced into the House of Assembly, having passed the Legislative Council in rapid order yesterday, seeks to amend the South Australian Public Health Act 2011 to allow the Chief Public Health Officer additional powers to pre-emptively control the spread of notifiable conditions, such as COVID-19 (coronavirus).

The proposed amendments will provide the Chief Public Health Officer greater capacity to rapidly respond and contain public health risks related to infectious diseases, while maintaining appropriate protections for individuals, such as case reviews and the capacity to appeal to the courts. The proposed amendments include:

allowing a more timely and rapid process for the Chief Public Health Officer to detain a person engaging in conduct that presents a risk to the public;

allowing detention, in urgent circumstances, where there have not been prior breaches or noncompliance, or the service of a direction;

expanding the application of controls under the act to people who could have been exposed to a controlled notifiable condition, previously limited to people who have or have been exposed to a case of that controlled notifiable condition;

where necessary, allowing verbal orders or directions to require testing, counselling or actions to prevent the spread of infection or detention to be followed with a written notice; and

clarifying that an order to remain at a specified place could include a hospital or quarantine facility.

Yesterday, in the course of the debate in the other place, the Minister for Health and Wellbeing took on notice a series of questions by the Leader of the Opposition in that house, all relating to potential quarantine facilities. In response to those questions, I am advised that SA Health's planning for a potential outbreak of COVID-19 is ongoing and includes discussion with relevant South Australian government agencies as well as other Australian jurisdictions. The specific details of the plan to be implemented will depend on such factors as the severity and timing of the outbreak.

I understand that the member for Kaurna has also asked for a comparison with other Australian jurisdictions of new powers for the Chief Public Health Officer in regard to the category of people who could be exposed to a controlled notifiable condition. I will undertake to come back to the house at a later date with a detailed response to that inquiry in the usual manner for a question taken on notice. I commend the bill to the house and seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

EXPLANATION OF CLAUSES

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Amendment provisions

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of South Australian Public Health Act 2011

3—Amendment of section 73—Power to require a person to undergo an examination or test

This clause amends section 73 to enable a requirement under the section to be given by oral order where the Chief Public Health Officer considers that urgent action is required in the circumstances of the particular case. When such an order is made the Chief Public Health Officer must confirm the order by notice in writing served on the person as soon as practicable, but in any event within 48 hours, after giving the order. A failure to serve a notice in accordance with the section will not affect the validity of the oral order.

4—Amendment of section 74—Power to require counselling

This clause amends section 74 to enable a requirement under the section to be given by oral order where the Chief Public Health Officer considers that urgent action is required in the circumstances of the particular case. When such an order is made the Chief Public Health Officer must confirm the order by notice in writing served on the person as soon as practicable, but in any event within 48 hours, after giving the order. A failure to serve a notice in accordance with the section will not affect the validity of the oral order.

5—Amendment of section 75—Power to give directions

This clause amends section 75(1)(a) to add to the circumstances in which the Chief Public Health Officer may make a direction under the section. The additional circumstance is where the Chief Public Health Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person could have been exposed to a controlled notifiable condition. In order to make a direction the Chief Public Health Officer must also, under the current section 75(1)(b), consider that an order under the section is reasonably necessary in the interests of public health.

This clause also amends section 75 to enable a direction under the section to be given by oral order where the Chief Public Health Officer considers that urgent action is required in the circumstances of the particular case. When such an order is made the Chief Public Health Officer must confirm the order by notice in writing served on the person as soon as practicable, but in any event within 48 hours, after giving the order. A failure to serve a notice in accordance with the section will not affect the validity of the oral order.

This clause also amends section 75(4)(a) so that a person may be directed to remain at a specified place including, without limitation, a hospital or quarantine facility.

6—Amendment of section 77—Power to require detention

This clause substitutes section 77(1) which provides the circumstances in which the Chief Public Health Officer may make an order under the section. The substituted subsection is in the same terms as the current subsection (1) with the following amendments:

(a) subsection (1)(a) of section 77 may additionally be satisfied under proposed section 77(1)(a)(iii) if the Chief Public Health Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person could have been exposed to a controlled notifiable condition;

(b) subsection (1)(b) of section 77 may additionally be satisfied under proposed section 77(1)(b)(iii) if the Chief Public Health Officer is satisfied that urgent action is required in the circumstances of the particular case such that a direction under section 75 is not appropriate.

Amendments consequential to the substitution of section 75(1) are included to provide that where an order is made under proposed section 75(1)(a)(iii), on the basis that a person could have been exposed to a controlled notifiable condition, the maximum period of detention that may initially be imposed will be 48 hours with periods of extension up to 30 days. Further, where an order is made on this basis and the Chief Public Health Officer considers that an extension of the order will be necessary, the Chief Public Health Officer must, before the expiration of the 48 hour period, apply to the Magistrates Court for a review of the order. Once an application is made the order may be extended and the Magistrates Court should seek to hear and determine the application as soon as is reasonably practicable at which time the Court may confirm, vary or revoke the order.

This clause also amends section 77 to enable an order under the section to be given by oral order where the Chief Public Health Officer considers that urgent action is required in the circumstances of the particular case. When such an order is made the Chief Public Health Officer must confirm the order by notice in writing served on the person as soon as practicable, but in any event within 48 hours, after giving the order. A failure to serve a notice in accordance with the section will not affect the validity of the oral order.

Section 77(4) is proposed to be amended to simply state that an order under the section will be that the person 'be detained' at a specified place while the order is in force rather than 'submit to being detained.'

7—Amendment of section 79—Warrants

This clause adds to the circumstances in which the Chief Public Health Officer may apply to a magistrate for a warrant of apprehension under section 79. The proposed new circumstances in which a warrant may be sought are as follows:

(i) in respect of a person who is the subject of an order that has not been served on the person despite reasonable efforts to do so;

(ii) in respect of a person who—

(A) has a controlled notifiable condition, has been exposed to a controlled notifiable condition or could have been exposed to a controlled notifiable condition; and

(B) is engaging in, or has engaged in, conduct that creates a risk to others in respect of the controlled notifiable condition.

8—Amendment of section 101—Service of notices or other documents

This clause amends section 101 as follows:

(a) to provide that, in the event that personal service of an order under Part 10 is not reasonably practicable, such an order may be served on the person in the additional manners contemplated by sections 101(1)(a), (b) and (c) which are that the order may—

(i) be served on, or given to, an agent of the person; or

(ii) be left for the person at their place of residence or business with someone apparently over the age of 16 years; or

(iii) be sent by post to the person or an agent of the person at their last known address;

(b) to provide that subsection (4) (requiring personal service of an order under Part 10) does not apply in respect of a written notice confirming an oral order made under Part 10.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (15:46): I rise to indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition and indicate the opposition's support for the South Australian Public Health (Controlled Notifiable Conditions) Amendment Bill 2020. This piece of legislation updates the South Australian Public Health Act 2011, which the minister and the Chief Public Health Officer have said a number of times over the past few weeks still remains a very effective piece of legislation and a very strong element in our armoury to combat a public health emergency.

It is something that, as a parliament, we should be proud of. Certainly, it was something that was passed and worked on back in 2010-11 under the previous health minister, John Hill. It really brought us a lot further in terms of our management of public health issues generally, both from preventative public health actions that need to happen in the community, which are very important, right to this pointy end that we are talking about here in terms of a public health emergency.

Unfortunately, at the moment across the world we are dealing with a public health emergency in relation to this new strain of coronavirus, or COVID-19 as it is now being referred to, which of course started in China but now there are cases in over 60 countries around the world with some significant outbreaks, including in Iran at the moment. We have had a number of cases in Australia and we have had a small number of cases in South Australia, including an additional one that has sadly been reported today. In other states of Australia, some infections are now happening person to person, which is concerning.

I do not think anybody can exactly outline where this is going to end, how serious, how difficult, how deadly and how invasive this disease is going to be. Of course, we believe that everything that can possibly be done should be done to ensure that we as a state are prepared to manage any eventuality. Where the government is taking steps to better prepare ourselves as a state for this, then they will have the complete support of the opposition.

We want to make sure that our state is prepared. We want to make sure that everything is done that could be done to prepare ourselves. It may well be that it is not as bad as some of the projections and discussions point to, but if it does turn out to be a significant pandemic across the world and in South Australia, then it will have paid off to be as prepared as possible. We will continue to both support any measure that the government has to better prepare ourselves and advocate for as much preparation as possible to make sure that we are well prepared here in South Australia.

In that vein, that is why this piece of legislation has our bipartisan support. Since it was announced by the government late on Monday, we have indicated our support for the legislation and also its swift passage through parliament, which we have done through the other house of parliament and will do so within the next hour, I am sure, through this house of parliament. I think that goes to the point that when we combat an emergency, when we combat serious issues facing our state, we need to come together and work quickly as a parliament to deal with these matters, and I am glad that that has happened in this case.

While the original act is regarded by both the government and the opposition as still a strong piece of legislation that will enable us to be protected, the government has undertaken some work in the past few weeks drawing on the work of public health officials over the past year or so looking at whether any modifications could be made to this act in the event of an outbreak such as we may face with coronavirus or in regard to any other potential outbreak that could happen, to make sure that those powers that the government has can be used as expeditiously and as appropriately as possible.

There has been a lot of media discussion about this. From going through the bill and getting briefed on the bill, I think the changes being proposed here might not necessarily be quite as dramatic as some of the media discussion about it. The legislation as it stands already has very significant powers for public health officials, as I think the community would expect in such a situation. However, what is being done here will improve and extend some of those powers for particular situations that we might face.

Firstly, it gives the Chief Public Health Officer the ability to respond quickly by issuing verbal directions in time-critical situations, allowing for rapid and decisive action to be taken where justified to prevent the further spread of coronavirus. It also extends the powers to allow for the detection of individuals the Chief Public Health Officer suspects could have been exposed to coronavirus where the situation necessitates swift action.

It also provides for the Chief Public Health Officer to seek warrants in circumstances where a person has been exposed or could have been exposed to coronavirus, which is one of the key changes in this legislation. Whereas previously it related to people who were infected, who were likely to have been connected to somebody who had been infected, this now raises a third broader category of people who could have been potentially infected.

As we were briefed by public health officials, an example was used of somebody who had come from a particular infected region and travelled to South Australia. That person would potentially need to be isolated to make sure that they had not come down with this particular virus or something else in the future, which seems reasonable in the circumstances.

There are examples from previous issues that have faced our state, and I have to say that the vast majority of people are compliant and want to do the right thing for the good of public health and will listen to those authorities when they are asked to do something. But it is important to have some strong powers in the act to make sure that, if somebody is not compliant, there are steps available to the Chief Public Health Officer to take action.

I think it is also important to remember that section 66 of the act gives the Chief Public Health Officer quite a wide range of powers to deal with a public health emergency of a notifiable disease and is quite non-specific in terms of a range of different things that the Chief Public Health Officer could do. We as a parliament, through both sides and whichever political persuasion has been in office, have always been minded to pass legislation that allows for some powers to be available in emergencies where you could never exactly predict what eventualities are going to come.

When you are dealing with an emergency, it is important to make sure that a legal basis is there for what might need to be very swift action in those circumstances. When we look at the Emergency Management Act or at the Essential Services Act, there is a range of emergency powers that are in place there that we hope never have to be used but that might have to be used, and in those circumstances the parliament would not want to be too prescriptive about the circumstances in which they would.

This is where both sides of parliament over generations have seen the need for those powers and have trusted our chief officers—whether it be the Chief Public Health Officer, the police commissioner or other emergency services officials in those roles—and whom the state would want to trust to deal with what would be some dangerous circumstances.

I thank the government for offering a briefing on Monday afternoon, rapidly after their decision to progress this in cabinet. We have worked well with the government on progressing this. A number of matters have been raised in the Legislative Council and we will have a number of other issues we will be raising in the committee stage today about how this will be implemented and some of the details of the legislation. I think it is important to note that the legal basis of this is one tool in the armoury. This is not the be-all and end-all of how we will respond to coronavirus.

We need to have in place a wide range of things and we need to be preparing now to ensure that we are doing everything that can be done. Most of those things are not legal matters. Most of those things are about the provision of health services and making sure that supplies are available and that coordination is happening between agencies, both within government and agencies and organisations outside government that might need to be called upon. Some are about making sure that our clinicians are consulted and aware of their roles and responsibilities. It is a good time to organise these things right now. We do not want to be doing this in the midst of a crisis later.

Our encouragement to the government is that the law should not be the be-all and end-all, that there is a wide range of things that need to be in place, particularly in relation to pathology services and making sure that the staffing is sufficient. We also need to make sure that the staffing is sufficient in our hospitals, and obviously there are some reductions in staffing happening at the moment that are of some concern. It is also about making sure that our paramedics are as equipped as possible, and there are obviously some concerns about the pressure they are under at the moment.

We would call on the government to make sure that all these measures are in place, and any steps that they take to appropriate funds, to take measures, to improve those services and to make sure that additional measures are in place will have our full support. We will continue to encourage the government to take factors of those matters.

Lastly, on behalf of the opposition I would particularly like to give our thanks to all those people within SA Health and in the broader health and emergency services community for the work that they are doing right now in terms of the preparedness work and for the work I am sure they are going to do in the future as well. The people who I am sure are flat-out busy at the moment would be particularly the SA Health teams, the Communicable Disease Control Branch, and the broader public health teams in SA Health. I have worked with a number of those people in previous working lives, and they are very professional and very committed to their task. I know that they would be flat out at the moment, and I hope that they are getting all the support and resources they need to undertake that work in what would be very difficult circumstances.

I would like to pass on our thanks to the Chief Public Health Officer, Dr Nicola Spurrier; Dr Chris Lease, the Executive Director of Health Protection; Dr Louise Flood and Dr Ann Koehler from the Communicable Diseases Control Branch; the people who work in the SA Health emergency branch; and the people who work in the DPC emergency area, who I am sure will be busy coordinating responses as well. It really stems from there.

All our hospitals will hopefully be busy planning their responses, as will the police, our emergency services, our ambulance services and then, outside government, our GPs, our aged-care facilities, our disability facilities, all these areas that provide care to people and that handle issues in an emergency. This is the time to prepare now. We wish our best to them in that work. We hope that they get everything they need to prepare and make sure that we can keep South Australians as safe as possible. In closing, I commend this bill. I thank the government for bringing it forward and hope that it helps keep our state as safe as possible.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (16:01): I am very grateful to members on both sides here and in the other place who have contributed to second reading debates to this point. I think that this sort of work is what the public expects of us as a parliament, that when we are confronted by a challenging issue politics is not remotely a relevant consideration in the work we do and that we work together as a parliament to get the best outcome for our community. It is really important. Across the world, there are a lot of people who have been impacted very significantly by COVID-19. Here in South Australia, and in Australia of course, there have been those impacts as well.

There was a brief period this morning when we did not have anybody identified as currently having the COVID-19 disease, but unfortunately we had the notification that there had been a positive test. I think that it is really important to reflect that the situation we are in in South Australia is one where we need to be, as the Premier said, alert but not alarmed. We need to be making preparations and doing this hard work. As others have done, I want to particularly commend all those fine public servants who work within SA Health, within all the realms of the Public Service, who are working towards that preparation.

The bill that we are debating is important. The Chief Public Health Officer has identified the reasons for which it is important. As I think the shadow minister, who previously worked in this area when in government, and members of the crossbench in the Legislative Council in the debate yesterday have identified, the original bill that was put through the parliament some nine years ago was one that had significant support, that took significant work. It was never meant to be, I think, the final step in the process.

There was always an understanding that in these public health matters, when the circumstances change sometimes you need to look at that. The nature of the COVID-19 outbreak has been particularly identified as one where its transmission prior to the presentation of symptoms has put us in a situation where, as has been seen overseas, these extra measures are required to make it potentially workable if we end up in a situation in South Australia that is significantly worse than it is now. We want to be alert but not alarmed, but we must prepare for what might be.

I thank all members who have indicated their support for this bill, and I particularly commend the Minister for Health in the other place, who worked with the Chief Public Health Officer, with SA Health, with public health officials and, indeed, with our draftspeople to get this bill into place in a very rapid period of time. I thank the opposition, and indeed the crossbenches, not just for their support for the bill but for their willingness to have it move through the parliament as quickly as possible.

As I think the shadow minister might have identified, or at least one of the members in the other place might have identified, the use of the new measures in this bill may not be necessary on a regular basis, but we want these powers to be available if they are necessary. Having this preparatory work done in preparing this legislation and having it available, I think will significantly assist public health officials in the delivery of response to any future needs. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1

Mr PICTON: I would like to ask a question in relation to the connection between the powers under this act and the federal powers under the Biosecurity Act. There was some discussion yesterday about those powers being enacted federally whereby the federal government might be able to detain people. Can the minister outline the differences and connections between those acts and how they might be coordinated between those two pieces of legislation at the state and federal levels?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the question. My understanding is that fundamentally the state laws and the powers that we are talking about are very much about containment of cases that present within South Australia and those risks. The federal laws apply very much more to what is happening at the borders and are more to do with dealing with the risks of people as they are coming into the country.

Inasmuch as there is a connection and coordination, the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee I understand is meeting regularly, and I believe that this is a topic of conversation and that the question the member has asked in relation to particularly connections between the legislation is one of the matters for discussion in that body.

Mr PICTON: My understanding is that under this act there is a public health emergency plan for the state. That includes a number of triggers that would happen, one of which would be the declaration of a public health emergency. I am wondering if the minister can outline whether any consideration has been given to such a declaration; if not, what would the triggers need to be for such a declaration to be made?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Has consideration been given? As has been discussed, public health officers are obviously aware of the triggers as described by the member opposite. The current focus of their work is on containment, and my understanding is that the requirement to do that work is capable of being met within existing resources. The member asked what would potentially trigger it. Out of an abundance of caution, I am going to double-check with my adviser. Yes, if extra resources were needed over and above what is currently capable of being met then that would be, for example, a trigger to deal with the management in that circumstance.

Mr PICTON: I appreciate that the minister in his second reading speech said that a table or comparison of state jurisdictions will be provided. Bearing in mind that the full information will be provided, is the minister or his adviser aware of any other state that has the power to detain somebody or to issue orders for somebody who could potentially have been exposed in the way that this act is now extending that?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I will try to describe the information as best I understand it. Effectively, different public health legislation around the country describes these types of risks in different sorts of language. In effect, it is not written up in other law in exactly the same way as it is in South Australia. I think what the member is trying to capture in the question that he asked is: are the people who are captured by the new category of people for whom these powers would then apply—the 'could have' group—captured by similar legislation in any other states? The answer is yes, but it is potentially described in different ways.

As I mentioned in the second reading speech, I will provide further information to the member by taking the question on notice. Perhaps to satisfy the form of the house, I will take this question on notice formally here in order to fulfil the commitment I gave earlier to provide full information to the member and to the house.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr PICTON: In relation to the powers that the Chief Public Health Officer has under this clause and also in relation to other clauses in the bill, can those powers be delegated to other people and, if so, how many current delegations are in place for the Chief Public Health Officer's powers?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The answer to the first part of the member's question is, yes, they can be delegated. In relation to how many current delegations are in place, I would like to take that question on notice and we will bring back a response to the member and the house.

Mr PICTON: There was some discussion in the other place, in relation to this power for somebody to undergo testing and also in relation to the other sections, about no longer requiring a written notice. An oral notice could be provided, which would then be followed within 48 hours with a notice in a written form, but the act says that the failure to serve the notice does not affect the validity of the order. If this clause says that we do not need to follow up with a written notice and it does not affect the order, can the minister outline why we have the section saying that we do need to follow up, if it does not matter anyway?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the question. The advice I have received is that this is a standard way of expressing a clause around an oral order. The caveat in relation to the oral order still standing—not just in this legislation, I believe, but potentially in others—is necessary to mitigate against a risk if there was some sort of interruption to the conduct of the written direction. Even with this savings provision, as I would probably characterise it, it is certainly the intent that a written order be provided. That is important to remove any ambiguity and remove any doubts so that the person who is receiving the order has every understanding of why the oral order has been given.

Mr PICTON: To clarify the government's interpretation or definition of an 'oral order', would that involve an order issued by telephone or some other sort of carriage or internet service?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The advice I have is that it is certainly our intent. The intent is focused on it being a direct instruction. That said, it is likely, according to advice, that a telephone instruction or potentially a Skyped oral order would be allowable under the law, but it is certainly intended to be in relation to a direct instruction.

Clause passed.

Clause 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Mr PICTON: In relation to the new definition under section 75(4)(a) of a 'specified place' now involving a quarantine facility, has the government given any thought to what quarantine facilities could be used in such a situation? I presume there is nothing that the government currently houses as a quarantine facility; in fact, I think the minister asked his adviser during our briefing if there was any quarantine facility, and I think the answer was no; therefore, some other facility might need to be used. Is it part of the plan that there are contingencies in place, or would there have to be a rush to try to find something?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the question in relation to this matter. The question started, 'Has the government given thought to what might be used?' Obviously, consideration has been given to this as part of the whole preparation process. As I said earlier, the planning for a potential outbreak of COVID-19 is ongoing. It includes discussion with agencies and other jurisdictions, and the specific details would depend on factors including the severity and timing of the outbreak.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr PICTON: Yesterday, the minister undertook to provide for consideration what facilities outside our metropolitan hospitals are identified as quarantine facilities in the event of an outbreak. Can that information now be provided? My understanding is that the government is saying that generally it would be looking towards hospitals being used, but my understanding from a number of pandemic plans, etc., is that there have been discussions about what for a pandemic flu would be flu clinics, or in this case respiratory or fever clinics. Have those sites been identified as well?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the question. Obviously, the Minister for Health in the other place provided some response yesterday, and I think that the answer to this question is probably, from my point of view in this place, similar to my answer to the direct previous one, in that it depends on the factors involved. To the extent that I will be able to provide any further information in the not too distant future, I will bring that back if it is appropriate to do so.

Mr PICTON: Thank you very much. Has the minister had feedback in relation to the bill from the Australian Medical Association, and, if not, then I am wondering whether he could respond to the feedback they have provided, through the opposition, in relation to this bill?

I think that on the whole it is fair to say that they have given cautious support and hope that it be carried out in a calm and depoliticised manner, which I believe we have all agreed has happened. However, they do raise some suggestions, including a suggestion that the defined situations in which control measures be applied be tightened to a controlled notifiable condition with a pandemic potential.

Obviously, there are some controlled notifiable conditions that do not have a pandemic potential. They have said that a panel should be required to invoke such a power with at least two suitably qualified medical practitioners, and that the period for which the individual is detained should be clear and for the minimal time to ensure effectiveness. They also say that there should be a robust, streamlined resources appeals process which should be accessible to all, including the socially disadvantaged, and which can being practically managed in the situation when an individual is detained.

They go on to say that the need for respect for the individual and the manner in which they are treated should be emphasised and that the practical manner in which detention is to be enforced should be clear. I am wondering whether you have had that feedback, and, secondly, what is your response to those suggestions from the AMA?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the question. We appreciate what I think the member described as their support for the legislation, and indeed I express, if it has not already been done, the appreciation that we always have for constructive feedback. Obviously, as the member himself identified in the second reading speech, the bill does deal largely with existing powers in terms of some extensions to those, but we will obviously be very respectfully looking at the suggestions from the AMA and other stakeholders as to how laws or regulations and our practices and policies can be enhanced. It is really important to note in relation to the specific point that the member has raised that, in the existing arrangements, significant appeal provisions do exist and, indeed, will continue to.

Mr PICTON: Obviously, in the case where somebody is being detained, health workers and the police, etc., who would be undertaking that work would be potentially exposed. There was discussion in the other place yesterday about how to do that, including the need for personal protective equipment, making sure that staff were looked after, making sure that people were appropriately detained and making sure that they were doing what they were meant to do. Can the minister outline what steps are being taken to enhance our capability in terms of personal protection for staff who might be doing this work?

Secondly, has any thought been given to any monitoring devices, etc., presumably similar to what we would use in the corrections system at the moment, that could be applied to people to make sure that they are following the orders? I understand that the minister said that he would seek more advice and come back on that today.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am advised that people involved in the management of cases of training have the necessary personal equipment. SA Health is obviously well and truly in a position where, if there are further measures that need to be taken, they will be able to provide that advice. I think the minister traversed some of this area in the Legislative Council yesterday.

Mr ODENWALDER: I have some questions on clause 6. Has the minister received any direct feedback from the Police Association, and can that feedback be tabled?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the question. SA Health continue to be in discussions with SA Police. I am advised that the police commissioner has conducted a briefing with the Police Association. I do not have intimate details of that discussion.

Mr ODENWALDER: My next question then is about the nature of detention itself. It may be my lack of understanding of the original bill, but obviously an oral order or otherwise is made and then certain people are empowered with the authority to detain people, including SA Police. That is my understanding. Certainly, that is the public statement, even though it is not mentioned specifically in this clause.

I understand that there are powers of detention that SA Police have in relation to warrants and I understand that there are powers of detention in relation to the Summary Offences Act. I just wonder what their specific authorities are, and are they the same in the original Public Health Act as they are under this amended section, if you understand my meaning? Are they in the original section 77?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Since 2011-12, these powers have existed. The current legislation before the house extends the number of people to whom these powers might be applied or, indeed, the opportunity for the direction to be more easily applied. Potentially, theoretically, there could be more people to whom it would be applied. The principle, as I understand it, is the same.

I think as the member for Kaurna said in his second reading speech, and I am sure the Minister for Health has said, most people overwhelmingly would respond to that oral direction in a sensible way. We are talking about people who are being given advice that is not just for the community's safety; it is for their own safety, their own health and their family's health. Most people in our community you would expect would overwhelmingly comply with an order from the Chief Public Health Officer or the Chief Public Health Officer's delegate.

Mr ODENWALDER: To clarify, SAPOL have been included in that list of delegates since 2011-12—not to make an order, but enforce an order?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I direct the member's attention to the existing act, where section 79(10) provides:

In this section—

authorised person means—

(a) a police officer; or

(b) a person authorised by the Chief Public Health Officer to act as an authorised person under this section.

Mr ODENWALDER: That is very helpful, thank you. While we are here perhaps you could clarify for me, when there is an arrest made or a detention made under a warrant, as in section 79 and in clause 7, there are stipulations about the use of force, the police can use any force, an authorised officer can use any force, I assume that the same rights and protections afforded by that kind of clause exist in section 77? We are not talking about the vast majority of people, as you say, who will comply with an order. Perhaps we are talking about some people who may, for whatever reason, not wish to comply with an order.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Obviously we trust that the vast majority of people behave in a rational fashion and we make laws to deal with those who do not sometimes. I think the answer to the question was: my advice is yes.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, you have had three questions on this clause.

Mr PICTON: I thought I had two on this clause.

The CHAIR: I have you down for three.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am happy to have another one.

Mr PICTON: Look at the spirit of bipartisanship.

The CHAIR: Given the minister's amenity to this, you have the call.

Mr PICTON: I thought I had kept one up my sleeve.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: You did ask a couple in one go.

The CHAIR: It might have been a point of clarification.

Mr PICTON: That's right. It was very strategic. I do not think you answered the second one. In any case, understanding what you were saying in terms of the people authorised to order the detention and carry it out, obviously there would be an issue in terms of making sure that those people are appropriately detained. One of the issues that the Police Association have raised is: is it going to be the police who have to monitor these people and make sure they are where they are meant to be in this quarantine facility, or would you bring in security guards to do that? What is the plan for who would be looking after those people?

One of the concerns of the Police Association is that, if it is the police who have to guard these people, it is a lot of police officers you are taking off the beat to do that and what is the impact upon their resources. Likewise, if it is security guards who are doing it, then that might be something that needs to be planned ahead of time to make sure that they are appropriately trained and appropriately protected, PPE, etc., to undertake such a role.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: As I understand it, the intention would be in a general situation to detain in a healthcare facility, so who is responsible in this situation would depend on the individual case. I do not want to make a big issue out of it, but the member has himself acknowledged that we are not going to be talking about a significant number of people. The power in itself, we would anticipate, would be responded to by the vast majority.

When the member says that it would take a significant number of police officers off the beat, as I say, it would be in a health facility and we might not be talking about police officers, and I do not think we are going to be talking about a large number of people. Authorised officers under section 43 of the act may use their existing powers under section 47 of the act to be accompanied by assistants, which may involve security. There are also powers under the emergency officers provision of the act (section 48) to be appointed by the chief executive of the department. This may be individuals or a class of people, so there is some flexibility there.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr PICTON: As of today, who are authorised officers under the act? You have mentioned police, but who else is there?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am advised that there are state authorised officers, who are essentially SA Health employees who fall under this category, and also local authorised officers, who are essentially council-employed environmental health officers and who tend to fall into this category.

Mr PICTON: Essentially, they are the same authorised officers for health inspections as for dealing with these notifiable conditions?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: For the sake of clarity, can I have the question again, please.

Mr PICTON: You mentioned in your answer before that authorised officers are various SA Health people and environmental health officers from councils.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Yes.

Mr PICTON: Essentially, is it the same authorisation for exercising powers under this act to deal with food inspections as it is to deal with these notifiable conditions? There are not different categories.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: There are two different types of authorisations.

Mr PICTON: Have any warrants ever been issued under this act in terms of section 79?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Not that are coming to the mind of anyone in the room, but we will take that on notice to ensure that, if there have been, we will provide that information.

Mr ODENWALDER: I have one question and it harks back to the member for Kaurna's question on clause 6 about resourcing and about the levels of police that might be involved, particularly police who might be involved in the detention, and the impact that would have on their resourcing. I want to put the question to you again because I think it is a good question. When police detain people under the Mental Health Act, for instance, or when they are present when suspects are hospitalised, for instance, if they are injured and the police have to stand by that does take them off the road for a shift or two.

I think, perhaps to clarify what the member for Kaurna was saying, what I am asking about are not lengthy periods of detention. What I am asking about is the initial detention. An order is made; the detention is made. If we are talking about a large pandemic—the reason we need to bring this in so urgently is that we have to anticipate something like that, or we have to acknowledge the possibility of it—then what discussions have gone on with the Attorney-General's Department or with the police about resourcing in the case of a significant pandemic, or whatever the correct word is, when there are large numbers of people being detained simultaneously? Are police expected to control those, and has there been any discussion about extra resourcing?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: This bill is not to address that apocalyptic pandemic worst-case scenario that the member just described. This bill is focused on meeting our current and immediate potential needs. If there were the sorts of circumstances which the member has described, then that would trigger the issue that we were talking about before, an emergency management arrangement, which would be a different set of circumstances.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Mr PICTON: This is a clause that looks sort of minor and obviously on the weight of the other clauses probably has not had as much attention. I am just wondering if you could explain what the rationale behind this clause is. My reading of it is that currently the legislation says if I am serving the Deputy Premier a notice saying that she needs to be detained, then she needs to be given that personally, whereas we are now saying that—

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

Mr PICTON: I would not entertain such thoughts, member for Elizabeth. We are now saying that it could be served on an agent of the person, so presumably a lawyer, etc., it could be left with the person at their place of residence as long as they are over 16, or it could be sent by post to the agent of the person at their last known address, which, in the circumstances in which we are talking, does not seem a reasonable approach given the immediacy with which we would want that person to have the information, having to rely on Australia Post as good as they are, to get it there within three or four days.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the question. As with a number of other things, we are referring to the provisions that already exist in the act. Obviously, the first preference is always to serve it directly. The experience of communicable diseases staff, I am advised, is that there are occasions when that is not possible and that is why the act anticipates and contemplates such a circumstance.

Mr PICTON: I hope nothing has to be relied upon the post to deal with this outbreak. Last question from me—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Isn't Trish White on the Australia Post board?

Mr PICTON: I do not think she is anymore. Even if she was, that does not mean that they are not slow. You mentioned before that the authorised officers include the council's environmental health officers. What steps have been taken over the past month and a half since this issue of coronavirus has been brought to the public light and world attention to engage them in this process and also to educate them on what the additional changes are that the government is seeking to make through this legislation? Obviously, given they would have an important role, I would have thought it important that they know what the new powers and responsibilities would be under the act.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the question. Directly to it, SA Health has been in regular contact with both the Local Government Association and, indeed, the specific officers the member has identified, as COVID-19 and our understanding of it have developed over the last little period. While that will continue, and in relation to these specific powers the information and the support will continue, we expect that it will be the SA Health authorised officers who would be the key parts of the government's response and support for our community in this space. These officers are also obviously identified, but it is the SA Health staff who will be the key players in this space.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (16:46): 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