HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-07-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

COVID-19 Emergency Response (Further Measures) (No. 2) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 1.

Mr PICTON: There was some discussion before the lunch break in regard to how the COVID Emergency Management Act legislation operates. This is obviously a time-limited piece of legislation that does rely upon an emergency declaration, otherwise known as a state of emergency, under the Emergency Management Act. We are having a number of rolling 28-day extensions by the State Controller advising the Governor.

As I mentioned in my contribution earlier, it appears as though the latest extension was expiring on Saturday. The Attorney has provided advice hot off the press that had not yet even been put on the website for the public to see that the Governor had approved another 28-day extension. However, there is obviously a great deal of uncertainty for some people in terms of whether these provisions exist in the long term and, if those extensions were not to apply, then obviously that act would cease.

These provisions we are about to enact, but all the other provisions in the act, would end as well. Can the Attorney outline the process by which that decision is made? Is this something where the government is getting a bit of lead time in terms of being able to plan for those extensions to make sure that if it was not to be extended we have enough time to put in place things that would enable those elements of the act to continue that need to continue.

One of the things I am concerned about is that, if the emergency management direction was to end during our winter break, we might need to bring back parliament to deal with some of the things that should continue during that period. What is that decision-making process inside the government and how much time do you have between knowing that it might be extended or not and being able to put things in place?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is not specifically relevant to the COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill before us, but I am happy to explain what has happened here. I think the request is to identify the process in relation to the extension of time based on the Coordinator's recommendations.

In the first instance, you might recall that in March the first step was for the head of the Department for Health to be appointed under the Public Health Act and the rules and obligations that sit within that, including the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Department for Health, who under that law takes on a certain role in the public health issue that was clearly in existence.

The circumstances deteriorated internationally, and it was determined in March (I cannot remember the exact date now) that there would be the establishment of a state emergency, and the Emergency Management Act then comes into play and in a circumstance of there being an emergency—as distinct from a catastrophe, because there are catastrophic provisions separately—stage 2 is the state emergency, and under that act, the coordinator general is appointed. The coordinator general is defined in that act to be the police commissioner. A period of declaration of his responsibility under that act can be made for up to 28 days.

That has been periodically continued—rolled over, extended, however you want to describe it—to have a continuous period of a state of emergency since that time. The reference of the matter from cabinet to the Governor today to extend that has been based on a request by the Coordinator, who makes an assessment about whether that is necessary to continue. He presents that for cabinet approval, and then as a member of Executive Council the Governor signs that. That is the process and that is what has continued.

We have no idea yet how long that process might continue to be sought by the Coordinator. We have not denied him any request for there to be an extension of declaration when he has asked for it and it has been done in monthly instalments. As I understand it, the Coordinator meets almost daily, at least on the phone, with the Premier and others, including the health advisers on these issues, together with their liaison through various federal bodies. There is almost daily communication, and they are obviously significant contributors to the decision on whether or not the police commissioner asks the cabinet to declare that provision under the Emergency Management Act.

I hope you understand that is what the process is. I cannot predict how much further it will go. All the way through this, though, as we have made these COVID orders or COVID laws, and the commissioner has made all sorts of directions with the support and advice through the Crown Solicitor's Office and the Solicitor General—particularly because of the cross-border directions and the fact that we have High Court proceedings underway to which we are a party as a state (we intervened in those proceedings in the middle of June)—we have been keeping a bit of a tally of what has been successful and what might be useful to continue on a permanent basis, and obviously we have a number of our agencies working to bring that together.

We are mindful that after today the parliament does not come back until 8 September. We then have about a month to make a decision about anything that might need to be extended to support a COVID emergency and, secondly, to have done some more work, which we plan to continue during the winter break, to consult with people about these initiatives and others that are coming forward. One of them is to deal with more electronic conveyancing options. All these are matters that are under consideration for continuation.

Again, I place on the table the invitation to the opposition that if there are particular views they have on any of the COVID laws currently operating, good or bad, then we would be pleased to hear them. But, if there are other initiatives they want us to consider or they have stakeholders who have an interest in considering or people who are concerned about aspects of the interim COVID laws, please let us know. We are happy to include all of those in the collation of the twofold exercise: what do we need to continue if there is a continued emergency, and what can we continue as substantive law down the track?

Mr PICTON: I thank the Attorney for her response. I think it is interesting from the Attorney's answer that it seems as though what has happened at least this month is that today there has been a recommendation through cabinet to the Governor to extend it for another 28 days; however, that is only two days before it was due to expire.

I think that leads to some concern as to whether, if that were not to happen after a particular 28-day period, there would be enough time to put in place provisions to put laws in place, if need be, to deal with those matters expiring. Therefore, I wonder if the Attorney has turned her mind to any provisions or had drafted any provisions that could be enacted swiftly if that was to become the case.

It would seem sensible to me to do that ahead of time rather than waiting, if there was to be the event that that decision was made. I note that police commissioner Grant Stevens said that one of his factors in thinking about the extension of time and needing to keep that in place—and I got the impression from his radio interview that it is quite a significant burden being the State Controller for such a period of time—is obviously the laws that attach to it.

So does the Attorney have a plan B lined up? Is there drafting done? Is there work prepared that would enable either regulations to be put in place or a bill to be introduced to parliament to carry things over in the event that a state emergency was no longer extended for another 28 days?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I try to dissuade any concern that the member might have as to there being an alarming situation where just suddenly a day or so before there might be a cancellation of the whole emergency status and we would all be left in limbo. The reality is that for this month, for example, at least a week before, that is, before this week, the Coordinator—you called him the Controller, but is he the Coordinator or the Controller?

Mr PICTON: Coordinator. Sorry, did I say Controller? My mistake.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: State Coordinator, yes. That is alright. He has already determined his view of that and that it needs to be extended. Cabinet met on Monday, so that is the normal process. As I say, His Excellency has been very accommodating. We often see him more than a couple of times a week, and I know that time has been set aside for me to meet with him tomorrow in light of these COVID laws that we have been dealing with in the parliament this week. Of course, we also have a deputy governor, so we have got plenty of backup to deal with the situation.

Mr Picton: I am not worried about the Governor.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I want to allay any concern of the parliament that we are going to expire in time and that suddenly we are all going to be left in limbo. At the moment, the working arrangements are very cooperative. The police commissioner, as the Coordinator, gives plenty of notice and is in regular contact with the Premier. I can say that for this last term it was confirmed at the cabinet on Monday that there should be a further declaration a week early to cover it. So the fact that the Governor signed it this morning, I want to reassure the parliament, should not in any way leave members with any concern that we are going to suddenly be in no-man's-land when it comes to a declaration.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr PICTON: Thank you very much, Chair. This section has the guts, essentially, of the bill in it—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Substantive.

Mr PICTON: I am from down south, not Burnside; we call it the guts. This is where the substantive sections of the legislation are. As we have discussed, there are two parts: one is about telepharmacy; the other is about the protection of particular workers.

We had a debate through the second reading in relation to the categories of workers who would receive protection under this legislation, the amount of time that they would receive protection and also which categories they would be. Originally, the government only intended to protect pharmacists. They have now extended that to cover pharmacy workers and a range of health practitioners when they are involved in testing, such as GPs or staff at COVID testing centres.

There has been an issue in relation to threats against pharmacy workers and, by extension, threats against retail workers. I was very surprised to hear the Attorney-General say that the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (the SDA) had not provided her with examples of threats against retail workers, when they have repeatedly raised with issues about threats to workers, including pharmacy workers.

In the break between our last debate on this, I obtained some of the correspondence. In fact, the SDA did write to the Attorney on Monday, setting out some of those stories from front-line retail workers who were concerned about threats against them and concerned about how vulnerable they are. They have been subjected to physical and verbal assault throughout the pandemic.

We have all seen some of the pictures from here and around the country of retail workers being attacked and threatened during the course of this pandemic. It is completely unacceptable. For the Attorney to say that she has not been provided with any evidence of that, I think, would be shocking for people who work in retail, where there are daily examples of that.

One of the examples that the Attorney was provided with on Monday was a story from Savannah, who works at Priceline—a pharmacy worker who originally was not going to be covered by this legislation. In her message to the Attorney-General, she said:

During this pandemic I had items thrown at me (because we weren't accepting cash). I have been spat at (because I asked the customer to respect social distancing. I have been called [an 'effing b'] (because I would not let a customer use my personal hand sanitiser that I had to purchase with my own money despite the fact that we had stock for the customer to purchase). Retail workers have been abused during this pandemic by others who have had the luxury of working at home! Something needs to be done!

There are countless examples like Savannah's. A number of others have been raised in the correspondence to the Attorney-General, including that of another retail worker, Jamie, who said:

My store is limiting customers to 15 and for a busy store this can be difficult to handle. I've had customers abuse me, threaten me and also received a jab to the rib as I asked a customer to wait in line. All because I was trying to follow the government restrictions.

There are more examples that have been provided. Morag from Woolworths said:

I'm a customer service manager at Woolworths. I have been punched in the face clawed on the arm. Spat at coughed at and get abused on a weekly [basis]. I have worked for Woolworths for 30 years and it is getting [worse].

The Deputy Premier has been provided with example after example of abuse, threats and violence against retail workers. It is very surprising that the Attorney-General would come to this house and say that she has not been provided with those examples and has not been provided with evidence of threats and attacks against retail workers. My questions to the Deputy Premier are: if these stories from these front-line retail workers are not enough for you, exactly what are you looking for? What evidence do you need to take this issue seriously?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I hope I have made it clear in the contribution I have already made in relation to correspondence exchanged between the Premier, the SDA and me and the concern they have raised about people who have been vulnerable in the circumstances as have been identified in those three. I have referred to a letter that went to the Premier with an attachment of photocopies of sticky notes from different persons who had recorded their concern, and they may well be three of those that have been read out.

Again, there is no information as to what has happened with those inquiries. Of course, in receiving information like that, I consider each one of those to be very serious. I would hope that the secretary of the shop distributors union would have immediately assisted that person, especially if they are a member, to go to the police to give a statement and follow it up with the employer because the employer's obligation is to provide a safe workplace as well. That is what I have been asking the SDA to let me know.

I have recently written back to them. This week I have signed a letter to say, 'This is my advice on this matter so that immediate support can be given to those of your members, or any complainants, who are in this situation.' It is not satisfactory for someone to be treated at their workplace in a rude and offensive manner, let alone the spitting and assaults to the ribs and things that have been described in those comments. I totally agree with that.

But what I say to the SDA is that it is important that these matters are reported and/or recorded when they happen in order to assist the police to be able to prosecute these matters. It does not matter how many times we make laws down here. We have to have people prepared to step forward as a witness to say, 'I have seen the most appalling thing happen to someone who works with me at the local Coles or Woolworths,' and/or the victim, to be able to record that and support the police to be able to do something about it.

Clearly, that is why there has been this call from the SDA that there be some attention given to law reform in more criminal offences. I do not have an issue with that. We have already been dealing with those who provide front-line services in a health or emergency situation. If we are going to go to retail shops or to people who might be providing a service in any other forum, not to be enforcing a circumstance or withdrawing from a customer as a result of a direction of a particular thing they want that might draw an angry response, in a situation like this, we all have to be responsible and supportive to those around us.

People are fragile, angry, distressed and frightened; our own neighbours might be living on their own. We all have an obligation to try to understand that a number of people going through this are quite frightened. They are certainly fearful for themselves or others in the sense of getting this condition. They are irritated at the very least about restrictions around them that might affect their access to certain food products or toilet paper or anything else, and then of course you have the alarm of those who are wanting to provide for their family. So there are a lot of people in our community who are under the duress of the consequences of this situation we are in.

Again, I think we all have an obligation to assist in this regard. But in respect of a union, which has members who need protection, our government will look at any matters we think are worthy of bringing into the parliament or adding amendments to bills, all those sorts of things. I have urged them to be clear about what actions are currently being taken because one of the other things we have to look at as a government is, if there is a situation prevailing in our food outlets or supermarkets, for example, where there is no security, which is what we are being told has been employed, to ensure that we do protect workers from angry customers, then we need to know about that.

A general letter in this regard is not really enough. I have asked for it and I am hoping that they will come forward with that. I am hoping that they will say to me, 'We have referred a number of these and we have supported people to be able to get to a police interview and take a statement, etc.' That is great because we do want to send a message, as we often say in this parliament, to those who breach that circumstance. I hope I have made that clear.

Can I also identify another matter that has been raised during the debate, that is, the question of consultation. The criticism of the opposition and, purportedly, following a small statement made by one of the journalists in The Advertiser today, is to the lack of consultation with the Pharmacy Guild, that it 'came as news to them', I think were the words used by the member for Kaurna when this bill was to be introduced. I am advised as follows:

In March 2020, the Chief Pharmacist established a working group with the Pharmacy Regulation Authority SA, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia to discuss how the operation of the community pharmacy premises might be maintained during the pandemic.

The first meeting was held on 17 March and the group met up to three times a week for a number of months during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in South Australia. Discussions included consideration of the pharmacy of telepharmacy in order to maintain the provision of professional pharmacy services to the community members in these settings. The Chief Pharmacist continues to work closely with pharmacists, pharmacy organisations and regulators.

The Pharmacy Regulation Authority SA wrote to the Minister for Health and Wellbeing on 18 June 2020 to bring their concerns around current legislative ambiguity within the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 as it applies to the provision of telepharmacy services. The Pharmacy Guild has a nominee on the Pharmacy Regulation Authority SA. The minister also met with the Pharmacy Guild—

I repeat: the minister also met with the Pharmacy Guild—

in June 2020, where the guild discussed the issues of pharmacists being assaulted.

Further, the minister spoke with a representative of the Pharmacy Guild as recently as Sunday before the matter went to cabinet. The Pharmacy Regulation Authority SA has also advised the Chief Pharmacist of recent consultation with the pharmacy organisations, including the Pharmacy Guild, in this context.

The following stakeholders were provided with a copy of the bill on Monday in advance of its introduction: the Pharmaceutical Society of SA, SA Pharmacy, The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia, the Pharmacy Guild, the Pharmacy Board (AHPRA), the Pharmacy Regulation Authority SA and National Pharmacies.

I hope that information to the committee averts any concern or fear there may have been arising out of either the questioning of the member for Kaurna or some article I read in The Advertiser today.

They then come to the question of those who are to be in the trial, and I confirm there are currently six community pharmacies with approval to provide telepharmacy under the Pharmacy Regulations Authority of South Australia code of conduct and guidelines for the telepharmacy dispensing from registered remote pharmacy locations. I repeat that the Pharmacy Guild, of course, is a member of that body.

I think it is fair to say, as I am advised by the minister, that there is still some work to be done in relation to the application of this, but I think it is a nationwide first to actually bring in the pharmacies in this way and to have them assist us—us, here in the public—to actually have the benefit of testing and the convenience of it locally at pharmacies. This pilot is being established. I am just reminded by my adviser that the information I am providing you is in relation to telepharmacy, not in relation to the pilot.

We appreciate the Minister for Health's contribution to making sure that he is listening carefully to this industry—that is very important during this pandemic—not the least to make sure that we get medications out. Goodness knows what is going to happen when we finally get a vaccine for this condition. We are going to be relying on the pharmacy world big time. We are probably going to need their round-the-clock support in being able to distribute and administer vaccines, all these types of things, to support other health industries during that part. The sooner it comes the better, but when it does come I do not think there is any question that we are going to have a very strong appetite from the public to have access to this as quickly as possible.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: I hope you are planning for that now.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am sure the Minister for Health is cognisant of that. At the moment, we are trying to have all these brilliant minds around the world work to try to come up with a vaccine to do that. I understand, and as we all know from the international press, that there are various trials now going on around the world. Thank goodness for those intelligent people who know what to do in this field, but in the meantime we have to keep preparing.

We have gone through areas of providing for accommodation, equipment, personal protection masks and the like, all these things as we go. At the moment, there is a very high risk of a problem build-up in Victoria. Everyone knows about it. New South Wales is not doing so well, and we know that it is a long way from being over, but we have health professionals working on how to keep us protected here in South Australia.

As I said the other day, I think there are very different challenges—for example, South Australians who live along the Victorian border—for whatever circumstance you are in and wherever you are living. In some ways, we are in the comfort of living within the City of Adelaide, with all the protections and services that go with city living. It is not the same for everyone out in the rest of the community. We do have to be cognisant of that.

Be assured that our minister is working diligently to ensure that we bring the people who provide the administration of medications to help support us in the pilot of allowing them to do the testing. As soon as we can get that going, we will.

Mr ODENWALDER: I want to clarify some comments the Attorney made in her response to the first part of the member for Kaurna's question. I do think there is room within this legislation, particularly during COVID, to include retail workers, which is why earlier on I mentioned the bill that I should not have mentioned.

We have heard from the member for Kaurna about assaults of varying degrees occurring in retail environments on retail workers. We have heard that the Attorney is aware of these assaults. We have had them detailed, so we are aware that the Attorney is aware of these assaults. She is also aware that they have been exacerbated and have come about within an environment of COVID. These are COVID-related assaults on workers. The Attorney is aware of them, and very rightly she says that the union, the employer or the victims themselves should have contacted the police and let the process run its course. That is absolutely right.

What it appears the Attorney is saying, then, is that the current provisions within the CLCA or the Summary Offences Act are sufficient to protect these retail workers by law. If that is the case, why do we need any of this legislation at all? If there are victims out there of COVID-related assaults in retail environments who are, according to your logic, protected by the current provisions of the CLCA, why do these workers need particular attention at the expense of retail workers?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: What we have done is establish a regime of protection of people who work in emergency circumstances, and that has been happening over the last few years, with penalties for assault on them in those circumstances—emergency departments and the like—as they are vulnerable to that. In this circumstance, the Legislative Council has said, 'Once we have started the employment of people who are going to be managing the distribution of drugs and the testing,' which is what we are dealing with in the pharmacy world and the workers who work in the chemist's shop and everyone else, 'there is going to be a risk in the administration of these duties that is the same as other health workers have'. That is why they have been accommodated and that argument has been persuasive in the Legislative Council and it is with us in this bill and the government is happy to employ that in its presentation today.

What we are asking for here is in relation to retail outlets. What I was trying to illustrate before is that it might be that there was an issue in relation to the restriction on product and there seemed to be a run on supermarkets. That issue, on the information we were given, was being dealt with by limiting people in supermarkets, and some of that came with social distancing, having extra CCTV and having security people involved. The information coming to us was that that had managed the initial problem. If it continues, though, clearly we need to know about it.

The correspondence that has gone to the Premier with this schedule of sticky notes of people's stories, or their pleas I suppose, alerts us to the fact that (assuming they are all genuine of course and that there is something that is breaking the law) we have to try to deal with it further if it is still happening. At this stage, we do not know when this happened or the detail of it, so what we are asking the SDA is to help us in dealing with that. Do we have a current problem and, if so, where it is happening and what is happening? Give us the detail of what is happening. If this is happening, are people taking photographs with their phone? Are they keeping a record of their bruises? There are lots of things that happen around this space.

Obviously, we have not had anything come to us from the police at this stage to say that this is a particular area of vulnerability, but you can imagine where there are others. For example, somebody turns up to get the rent, you have not paid your rent, it has not been electronically transferred, somebody says, 'I've lost my job. I've been sacked from the hotel,' and they smash the door in the rent collector's face. This is the type of situation that can arise when people are under pressure.

We could try to make all sorts of criminal laws with more penalties and so on for everybody who acts in a totally offensive unacceptable way and/or illegal way during a pandemic, but there are lots of people in this category who are frightened, angry, frustrated, etc. We will have debt collectors coming to us saying, 'We think we are in the firing line,' or people who have to give notice for somebody to comply with a certain direction or the local hotelier who says, 'I'm sorry, you guys. You look like you are having a good time, but you've got seven here at the table and you're only allowed to have six.'

All these situations are ones that can commonly occur. They may start with a rude or offensive comment and may transfer into something that is quite unacceptable as an offence, and we need to be able to manage it. We are happy to hear from the SDA. I have sent back some further correspondence to them this week. If it gets to a situation where we have an ongoing problem here, clearly that will be one other area we have to look at. I need contemporary data, including what has happened with them, and I am happy to look at it further.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. V.A. Chapman.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (18:00): 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