HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-11-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 29 November 2022.)

Clause 8.

Mrs HURN: Casting my memory back to where we were this time yesterday, the minister was providing some answers in relation to what piece of legislation was relevant to the $20,000 fine with the vehicles. He did make an assertion that, because we were asking questions about this, it indicated that we were not supportive of this bill.

I would like to outline to the house yet again, just in case the minister was not here or failed to hear our very clear position, that we do support this bill. That is why we are where we are, and that is why we have publicly stated that we support this bill. However, we do have some very genuine questions to ask in relation to the fines. The minister thinks it is unreasonable that the opposition asks questions that the business community and—

The Hon. C.J. Picton: Ask the question.

Mrs HURN: Well, I am just putting on the record the fact that you got the record wrong and I am clarifying it. If the minister thinks it is unreasonable that the opposition asks questions in relation to massive and hefty fines in relation to a $20,000 fine for failing to have an AED at a sportsground and failing to have an AED in a vehicle, then that is for the minister and the Premier to explain to the people of South Australia, but members on this side will certainly be asking what we think are reasonable questions. With that in mind, I do think I have actually asked my three questions, but—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Not according to the note I have, member for Schubert.

Mrs HURN: Thank you very much. That is excellent to know. In terms of the installation into vehicles, can the minister advise who it is that polices the AEDs? Who is it that ultimately ensures that compliance is met?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I refer to the answer I gave to a very similar question yesterday.

Mrs HURN: To be clear, I do not believe that specifically related to the vehicles, so perhaps for the benefit of the committee, and all the interested parties who are watching, could the minister advise who it is that is going to be policing the mandatory installation of AEDs? That would be helpful.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: It would be exactly the same situation that would be considered for both vehicles and buildings.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Member for Schubert, you have actually had your three questions now. You had one question earlier, I was advised, and you just had two.

Mrs HURN: You just said I did not have any questions.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): No, I said you had not used your three.

Mrs HURN: Okay, well, I will ask these next questions to the next clause.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): To the next clause? No problem.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

Mrs HURN: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Hurn–1]—

Page 6, line 19 [clause 9(2), penalty provision]—Delete the penalty provision and substitute:

Maximum penalty: $2,000.

Expiation fee: $500.

The opposition really cannot understand the logic behind fining individuals or organisations $20,000 for failing to maintain their AEDs. There is no underlying justification that has been given to the opposition as to how this figure was landed upon. We acknowledge, of course, that the maintenance and the testing are important, but we also believe that an expiation avenue, particularly in relation to this, is sensible; moreover, if our amendments are not successful we will certainly be pursuing it with the minister.

Who is policing it? What is the notice of a reminder to sporting organisations, to those that are required to have them in their vehicles and, indeed, for some businesses where this may be captured? What is the notification mechanism? Is there a reminder process that will be followed? I think we still need quite a bit of meat on the bones to justify why $20,000 was the figure that was landed upon. It is with that in mind that we have put forward these reasonable amendments.

We have landed on these amendments after some consultation with not only businesses but also other organisations across South Australia. We think this strikes the right balance. Particularly when it comes to maintenance and testing, we believe that an expiation avenue is absolutely critical. Fancy being slugged with potentially a maximum of $20,000 for failing to maintain and test your AED. As I say, we absolutely acknowledge that maintaining and testing is a critical element of this bill, but we have some serious concerns about how hefty these fines are, and that is why we are putting forward these amendments.

Mr TELFER: I rise to speak in support of the amendment put by the member for Schubert. I recognise that we have obviously had debate about the fine structures for any organisation, business or the like that has not installed an AED, if this legislation was to pass, in a place that is legislated. That is definitely one discussion to have, which we have had. To use the same fine regime for the maintenance and testing requirements I think is a misstep. This is why I am speaking strongly in favour of this amendment.

To have a maximum penalty of $20,000 for an AED which, according to this legislation, is not properly maintained or tested at least once every 12 months, is putting in place extra measures that are unproven and the parameters are still uncertain. To have a maximum $20,000 potentially for a community group, a sporting group, even a council, is a significant figure. It may well be that the minister will say that he does not believe there will be a time when the maximum penalty will be enforced. This is why, in the process of legislation and in the process of lawmaking with which we have been tasked by our community, we need to make sure we get the parameters right.

If the minister does not believe that we will get to the maximum of $20,000, then how about we set a maximum that we believe is appropriate? That is why we on this side have put forward this $2,000 change and the opportunity for an expiation. As I said on earlier clauses, there is a need for us to bring our community along with the progress when it comes to installation, testing and maintenance of these AEDs. For us to have the big stick of a penalty of up to $20,000 really does put out of balance the need for us to have the community to go along with us. I am speaking strongly in favour of this amendment, and I hope the government has given due consideration to this clause in particular.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs HURN: Can the minister talk us through what the process is for single-use AEDs and how they can be tested? I think this is a critical part of it, given we know that the cheapest AED supported by the TGA is $360, and that is for a single-use AED. Can it be tested and how is it maintained, not only for that single-use AED? What is the testing process and how much does it cost for the more expensive ones?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think, as we outlined yesterday, there are a significant number of different types of products and they will all have different procedures in place in regard to the testing. It is impossible for me to outline each and every product and each of their testing settings and what would be required to undertake that testing.

Of course, the requirement under this clause would be that you have to test it once every 12 months. That would be in accordance with the testing that has been set as part of the manufacturing and sales process and the guidelines that have been set out for that particular device.

Mrs HURN: I think the minister misunderstood my straightforward question, which was in relation to the single-use AEDs. Can they be tested and what is the process of maintaining them? I am talking specifically for a single-use one. I think it is helpful to know whether they can be tested and maintained because if it is just for a single use, would testing it, for instance, make it null and void for a further situation?

I am not going to waste my very precious three questions on asking the minister to clarify that because I think it is clear that there is still some further information that the minister needs to have on hand to be able to furnish the house with that answer. What is the government's intention when it comes to having a set of reminders for schools and for all the prescribed buildings and facilities? What is the planned reminder program that the government will be undertaking to ensure that each 12 months these are tested and maintained?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: In relation to the first part of the question, as I said, even for the single use there are a variety of different products. It would be impossible for me to outline all the various testing requirements that are set by the manufacturers of those different products. In relation to the second part of the question, clearly this is part of a communication that we will need to do if this legislation ever passes. Following that, we will have to make clear as part of that communication that not only is it a requirement to have in place the device but also there are requirements around testing as well.

Mrs HURN: Can the member outline how it is that the $20,000 maximum fine was determined when it comes to ensuring that these AEDs are maintained and tested every 12 months? We have gone through chapter and verse about the fact that the installation of an AED in a building is based on section 157 of the PDI Act, noting that there are some serious inconsistencies with that comparison with this specific bill.

We have not had an answer to what the $20,000 fine for vehicle installation is. I am just wondering whether the minister has an answer to how it was set that the maximum fine for failing to maintain and failing to test an AED would attract a maximum $20,000 fine and whether he thinks it is reasonable that potentially sporting clubs could be slugged $20,000 for failing to maintain and test their AED.

They already have a lot on their plate and this is just another thing they need to do. I am sure they would want to make sure that it was up to date. They would want to make sure that it was in an appropriate form to be able to utilise it—hopefully, they would not need to do that. Can the minister outline what piece of legislation this maximum fine is based on and how it was determined through stakeholder engagement?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: It is essentially the same answer that I have given to a number of previous questions in that this is a bill that was drafted by the Hon. Frank Pangallo. I believe it was drafted back in 2020 or 2021 and he undertook a range of consultation and consideration as part of the drafting process, and part of that was the setting of the penalties.

There have been some analogies drawn with various points of other sections on the statute book, one being in the PDI Act, as has been discussed, but I am sure there are other provisions in other acts that also refer to $20,000. Do I think it is reasonable? Yes, on balance, I do, bearing in mind the fact that this is a maximum penalty, which seems to be lost in this consideration.

It does bring me back to where we were a bit over six months ago in debating COVID legislation that has now expired, where we had the shadow minister and the Leader of the Opposition claiming that a maximum penalty of $60,000 in that circumstance, which was consistent with what was in the Emergency Management Act, was somehow draconian, dark age power.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I am answering the question. Clearly, the opposition have concerns around fines broadly in different bills that we see now, but I think that it is worth remembering that these are maximum penalties. I look at what happened in that piece of COVID legislation, which has now expired. I do not think we saw the absolute draconian, dark age situation that was professed by those opposite coming to pass. I do not think that we saw significant pain and anguish on businesses because of the penalties that were in that provision. Similarly, I think here there will certainly be common sense and reasonableness applied both when these things are brought to the courts, if that were to happen, and by the courts themselves in considering what would be a reasonable maximum penalty.

Mr TELFER: In regard to this clause to do with the maintenance and testing, as I mentioned in my second reading contribution, as someone who has been involved in the decision-making about the installation and ongoing maintenance in my own local community I know that there is an actual reasonably significant cost that comes to bear with this process. I know there are different components of these devices that need replacement at different times and for varying levels. The pads, for instance, need to be replaced every couple of years at the cost of a couple of hundred dollars, and the batteries themselves.

In reflecting that this is permanent legislation—not temporary legislation as the minister was referring to other legislation before—can the minister give me an insight into whether the state government is going to be budgeting to support the private sector, the not-for-profit sector and local government with the necessary ongoing not insignificant costs required of them under this clause, maintenance and testing in particular? Is there going to be ongoing financial support that the minister envisions the state government would be involved in?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Similarly with how we do not provide financial support in relation to testing of smoke alarms, etc., it is not envisaged that there would be a financial support package in relation to testing of defibrillators.

Mr TELFER: There is obviously a requirement under clause 9 that an AED is properly maintained and tested at least once every 12 months. Who is going to be the responsible body for monitoring the ongoing status of these AEDs once installed? There are going to be hundreds all around the state. Is the requirement going to fall on each organisation to ensure that the appropriate maintenance and testing is happening only to find out when there is unfortunately an incident that the AED called upon is not ready for the task at hand, whether it is properly maintained or tested, or is there going to be a body, either an existing one or a newly formed one, that will be tasked with the ongoing monitoring of the status of each AED around our state?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Certainly there is a clause 12 in relation to the register, but I do not see anything in there that would require separate registration in terms of the testing that will take place. That would simply be the locations and accessibility that would be part of the register, rather than periodic testing that would be in that register.

Mr TELFER: The main part of the question was whether there was there going to be a separate body for monitoring. Who is going to be tasked with the not insignificant challenge of visiting each of these areas with registered AEDs on all these different sites, multiple ones all around the state? Is this going to be an ongoing monitoring program, or is it going to be a sporadic one? What is envisaged by the government?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think I have already answered. The enforcement will have to be considered over time, and it would be a reasonable, commonsense way in which this would be enforced. The suggestion that you would establish a fleet of people who would check every single AED in the state is not entirely practical.

Mr TEAGUE: It might serve the committee, at least from my point of view, to consider a couple of worked examples. Much of the subject matter 'designated entity' is the Crown, at least for the time being, and it will be for a year post 2025. In relation to subclause (3)(c), category of prescribed vehicle, I acknowledge that the owner in the small but distinct category of private bus operator will be a private owner, but in the vast majority of those cases the Crown will be the owner. As in the case of all the trams, all the trains and the bulk of the public buses, it is the Crown that is the owner—and I have in mind clause 6.

In relation to those public-owned trams, public-owned trains and public buses, the vast bulk of the prescribed vehicles, for the present moment, has the government done any work to identify the particular AED it would roll out? Is it uniform across those vehicles and is there a cost? In relation to the trams, trains and public buses, is there any engagement with the private operators presently operating those public services?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The procurement of those for the trains, trams and buses, etc. will have to go through the appropriate state government procurement processes. There is not a particular device, to the best of my knowledge, that is selected for that rollout. As I mentioned yesterday, there is an amount of funding we have allocated to enable those works to occur, and that work will happen over the course of the two years. Obviously there will be work that will happen in relation to the private operators as well.

Mr TEAGUE: To perhaps complete the picture then, and to use another worked example, this time in relation to a building or more particular a facility, which is what I have in mind—and I refer to clause 6 in relation to the Crown's liability or otherwise, as is referred to here. It might be appropriate to do a comparison with the provision in (1)(c) of clause 7, where you might have a private operator in this case, as opposed to in the vast bulk of cases the Crown being the responsible entity for prescribed vehicles.

Say you have a private operator, this time of a retirement village that might meet the definition of a facility where you have an obligation applying in accord with clause 7(1)(c)—the minister might just take the opportunity to indicate how this might be rectified if necessary and we have an obligation in the case of the facility. If we are looking at a clause 4(e) facility (a retirement village), one where, on the face of clause 7(1)(c), there is an obligation to install one of these AEDs, one per 1,200 square metres of the facility reading that directly, the minister might take the opportunity to indicate what he thinks of clause 7(1)(c) insofar as it appears to create an obligation vis-a-vis the size of a facility.

There might be a concern, as I say, sotto voce on the side, about where the clause is requiring one per 1,200 square metres of facility you have an obligation to say, 'Well, hang on, for the sake of the analysis we have 700 square metres of built area, but per 700 we have another 700 of garden beds, open space and so on, which is clearly part of the facility—managed and all the rest of it.'

The minister might take the opportunity to respond, but on the face of it it is going to require the operator of that retirement village to have to effectively put one in the garden bed in order to meet the obligation. If they are not going to do that, they are going to have to work around it and have maybe two side by side on the same building and somehow try to persuade whoever is enforcing this that they are complying.

In terms of the worked example for clause 9, the obligation to maintain and test might therefore be quite varied according to the circumstances in which that facility is seeking to comply. It will not be a single one-size-fits-all set your course because, if you are having to meet a facility obligation in clause 7, your maintenance and testing processes are really going to be quite different. Perhaps the minister might start by just addressing that facility point and then provide whatever guidance he can for those who might be facing that challenge from a facility point of view.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Certainly, the issue in relation to retirement villages was raised very recently with me, in fact, by Mr Daniel Gannon, a former President of the South Australian Property Council. I am not suggesting that he is writing the questions for the member for Heysen (I am sure he is writing his own questions), but it is just a coincidence. In relation to that, I have certainly said to Mr Gannon, and I say here, that if there are particular issues in terms of retirement villages it is certainly not the intention of either Mr Pangallo in the drafting or the government in its support of this legislation that a garden would feature in terms of the calculation.

If there are particular issues, then we will consider them over the course of the three years leading into the implementation and also whether there are particular regulations if there are issues that are identified in that regard. That is not to say that there necessarily will be, but I would note that the Property Council and the Retirement Living Council, as an aspect of that, certainly have indicated their general support in relation to access in retirement villages, which is very welcome, particularly given the age cohort of people who live in retirement villages. We have seen the average age of people living in retirement villages increase over time. It is an area where certainly a high incidence of risks of cardiac arrests can occur.

Mr TEAGUE: It seems the minister has chosen to address the matter in those terms. Can I highlight it from a drafting point of view. Again, if that is a concession that the bill needs to be amended before it commences—and I will not hold the minister to that, and I do not mean it in that way at all, to say here we are seeking a guarantee from the minister; far from it. There has been some disquiet, including at the last adjournment, about the time it has taken to come to grips with what is set out here. There is a period of time before commencement, and these are matters of serious concern that need to be addressed.

Far from limiting it to a clause 4(e) example, one might apply the same test to clause 4(a), clause 4(b) and clause 4(c) in each of those categories. I am sure that the CE of Corrections would be interested in relation to clause 4(d). I used the example of clause 4(e) because I know about some of the beautifully maintained garden beds in our retirement villages. The point is that the drafting of clause 7 provides in express terms at the moment—with the $20,000 penalty attached, let's make no mistake—for the obligation clearly upon the owner of the designated building or facility to ensure that one AED is installed in the facility for every 1,200 square metres of floor area of the building or facility.

It is a matter that hopefully can be dealt with with common sense, like all things in life. Let's face it: the government is carrying the bill in the House of Assembly. It is all very well to say that it had its origins in working up via the advocacy of one dedicated member in particular. That is to be applauded. We emphasise our support for the bill in this regard, but we want to highlight how it is actually going to work on the face of it because that is what real people need to do each day once the bill comes into force.

Is it therefore to be understood that, in the case of the potential anomaly that might arise in just about any of the clause 4 categories around what might be an unusual disparity between the obligation per floor area of a building and the obligation per floor area of a facility, that will be subject to consideration by the government between now and commencement?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: To make this very clear, I do not believe that, as was being suggested, there is necessarily going to be a need to revisit this matter. I am merely stating that, if there are particular concerns raised, we will be happy to work through with, in this case, particular industry groups to make sure there is clarity. Looking at the clause, which I do not think is the clause the member was talking about, I do not particularly see that it would necessarily include garden beds, etc. within the definition. We will continue to talk to industry groups, etc. That is why it is very important that we have these three years of implementation time, and we will work those matters through.

Clause passed.

Clause 10.

Mrs HURN: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Hurn–1]—

Page 7, line 11 [clause 10(4), penalty provision]—Delete the penalty provision and substitute:

Maximum penalty: $2,000.

Expiation fee: $500.

Once again, we believe this amendment strikes the right balance and is consistent with the others we have put forward and the principles enshrined in them. Specifically, we believe that it is this clause that is most beneficial to have an expiation through it.

The proposal by the honourable member in the other place, the Hon. Frank Pangallo, in relation to fines for failing to have a sign near—and we still need to get to what 'near' exactly means and how far that is—an AED can attract a maximum penalty of $2,500. Whilst this is not as hefty as the fines of $20,000 that we have seen in the other clauses of this bill, we still believe that it is hefty.

More than that, we do believe that there should be an expiation notice specifically for this clause. As to all those sporting clubs and schools and all the facilities and buildings that are now going to be required to have an AED installed, which we support, we believe there should be an expiation notice, because fancy being slapped with a $2,500 maximum fine straight off the bat when you could have an expiation notice of $500.

It is with those principles in mind that we are putting forward what we think is another commonsense amendment for the house to consider, and we certainly urge those opposite to consider it wholeheartedly.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs HURN: Specifically in relation to clause 10(1)(a), could the minister please provide some further context as to what 'near' means, because I do think it is important. Is 'near' 100 metres from the facility? If the AED, for instance, is only available and accessible inside a premises, how much further outside of the front door does that need to be? Could you give us a practical sense as to what this bill is hoping to achieve when it legislates that a sign must be installed near the AED?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I did not bring my Oxford dictionary with me. However, I believe part of the reason why in the drafting process between the Hon. Mr Pangallo and the drafters and people he consulted with in relation to this bill there was not a specific requirement as to a number of metres is that I am sure it would depend upon the individual circumstances of the facility and the location. I am sure that being too prescriptive might lead to your raising a whole series of concerns in terms of: what if it could not be 10 metres or 15 metres, etc?

Mrs Hurn interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Schubert!

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I will complete my answer.

Mrs Hurn interjecting:

The CHAIR: No, actually I do not agree.

Mrs HURN: Okay, thank you. My next question is in relation to clause 10(5). Can the minister confirm what the process is in terms of adding additional requirements in relation to signs and what the Hon. Frank Pangallo in the other place means by that? We already know that there is no answer for what 'near' means, and I think that was a very straightforward answer, because is it near the actual AED? Is it a five-metre thing right near the AED? If this is a big facility, I think that people want to know where it is that they are going to be able to find the AED. Is it at the front door? When you walk through the front door, despite the fact that the AED may be on a separate level or whatever it may be, what is the signal that tells people this is where the AED is?

Is it near the actual AED itself? Is it outside the facility itself?

I think these are really straightforward questions and I am surprised at the minister's response. Nevertheless, what are the additional requirements in relation to signs that this bill is envisaging, and does he envisage that the regulations may prescribe any additional requirements to signs?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: There are no considerations or plans by the government at this stage in relation to regulations that would fall under subclause (5); however, obviously that has been put there to give some flexibility should that need arise and that would obviously be subject to consideration and potential disallowance by this parliament should that occur in the future.

Mr TELFER: Further on the regulations, I absolutely respect that the minister does not have the answers to these and that a lot of these will be developed in the regulation process. Will there be a prescription of the size, design and type of sign within the regulation so there is certainty or will there be a little bit more ambiguity as to what a sign might look like? I know there are existing example signs. I am wondering whether that is going to be prescribed in the regulation.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I suspect that the majority of people will be looking to particular standard signs. I understand that, even amongst the manufacturers, there is help that they provide in relation to standard forms of signage that people could use. At this stage, there is no consideration for an additional regulation to prescribe a particular type of sign. Potentially, that could be considered down the track, but there is no consideration. No-one has raised that with me, and I am not aware of any advice in that regard.

Mrs HURN: I am hoping for some clarification about what the installation of a sign means, specifically in relation to a vehicle. I am referring specifically to clause 10(3)(a) and (b). Could the minister outline what that looks like? Presumably, it means that there will be a sticker or something on the vehicle, but could the minister provide some clarification as to what that looks like and whether that is indeed the practical intention.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Subclause (3) provides:

…must, on the outside of the vehicle, install a sign indicating that an Automated External Defibrillator is in the vehicle.

I think that is right that it would likely be a sticker. I am not an expert in these things. There may well be other ways of affixing a sign to a vehicle, depending on the particular type of vehicle. I know that, particularly with our ambulances, there is a particular type of affixing of the signage on ambulances. I am not sure whether that classifies as a sticker. The CEO of SA Ambulance might provide me some advice in that regard, but I think that this highlights again that there is some flexibility. There is not a prescribed type of sign that must be put in place but there could be a variety.

Clause passed.

Clause 11 passed.

Clause 12.

Mrs HURN: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Hurn–1]—

Page 8, line 3 [clause 12(5), penalty provision]—Delete the penalty provision and substitute:

Maximum penalty: $2,000.

Expiation fee: $500.

Mrs HURN: I think that the house has a very strong understanding of our position when it comes to the penalties and, much like our justification for moving an amendment in relation to failing to have a sign would lead to a maximum fine of $2,500 and that we believe an expiation notice would be reasonable, it is for those exact reasons and those exact principles that we do not believe that by failing to register your AED it should attract a straight-out $2,500 fine.

We do believe that it would be very logical to be able to have an expiation notice available for this, because it would improve compliance and just give a much easier framework for the government to utilise to ensure that people are doing the right thing when it comes to putting their AED on the register.

Of course, we understand that we want people to comply, we want people to use the register, we want South Australians to know exactly where these AEDs are, but we implore the government not only to strongly consider this commonsense amendment for a $2,000 maximum fine, which is a slight reduction in the top rate, but also to install and give an avenue of an expiation notice.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs HURN: I have a couple of practical questions. Can the minister run us through the process of how an organisation will register? I will start with that one because the next one is not really linked. Can you run us through what the practical process will be of a business needing to register their AED?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: We will have a registration portal, which will be run with SA Ambulance and which will enable people to input their details through that portal.

Mr TELFER: Minister, I am just trying to get an insight into whether there is an obligation on regular updating, checking or purging of the register, or whether the obligation purely comes from subclause (4)(b), which provides that, after any change, there is an obligation on an entity to notify the minister within two weeks, and that if they go beyond that two weeks they open themselves up to a potential $2,500 fine?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The advice I have is that it is not envisaged that there will be a sort of purging of information on the register: it will be based on the information that is provided. It is worth reiterating that it is important that people update that information because we do not want a situation where people go to an AED where there is not one available when those emergencies strike.

Mrs HURN: Just following on from that answer, can the minister confirm that there will be some sort of leeway or commonsense understanding in relation to clause 12(4)(b), which provides:

(b) notify the Minister in the manner and form determined by the Minister of any change to the information provided in accordance with paragraph (a) within 2 weeks after the change.

What if there is a very basic change in relation to the opening hours of a facility and all those matters? Can you talk us through what the practical framework would be for informing the minister of any change?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think that there will certainly be a commonsense approach to updating the information and making sure that we are not being overly onerous. This section will be specifically managed by SA Ambulance, and I do not think they will be taking an unreasonable approach to that. They will certainly have an ability through the portal that will be established—in a reasonably practical way—to be able to update information to make it as easy as possible.

Mr TEAGUE: I will ask a question about whether or not this is an example of where clause 6 has some work to do insofar as the substantive obligations in clause 12, the bulk of them, are obligations on the minister and the consequences of any failure by the minister to comply with those obligations might be conceivably quite serious, as opposed to the quite confined penalty provision in respect of subclause (4), which is about obligations to provide information to the minister. One might understand the way that regime works and the motion to ameliorate that penalty having been defeated. The bulk of the serious obligations there are on the minister. The question is: is that an example of where clause 6 has some work to do? What are the consequences for the Crown in the event that the register fails?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: My reading of it is that subclause (5) is in relation to subsection (4), in which the responsibility falls on the 'designated entity' rather than the minister. The responsibility on the minister to maintain the register in subclause (1) is on a particular penalty. There are obviously a number of pieces of legislation on the statute book that have particular responsibilities on ministers. Ministers are ultimately accountable to both the cabinet and the parliament in the exercise of their duties.

Mr TEAGUE: I do not know if it needs clarifying; I think that is exactly what I said. The penalty provision in (5) relates to the call of the private obligation in (4), whereas the serious obligations in this clause are (1), (2) and (3). I hear the minister's answer. Does the minister recognise, in the event that the minister is responsible for the maintaining of a register, what consequences flow in the event that the register fails or is in any respect more particularly defective?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think it is entirely consistent with many other pieces of the statute book where there have been responsibilities in relation to ministers over the decades, no matter what party, and those ministers are responsible to the parliament in exercising those duties.

Mr TELFER: I have a quick question, minister. We are obviously on clause 12(2), looking at what will be included within a register. Are we envisioning that a location of an AED will be a street address, or will there be a designation within that street address of exactly where the AED is? We envision a shopping centre, for instance, which has a single address, a single location, but the AED itself would have a location within that location. If so, when there is a change, within two weeks, to that location, is that what will be required of the entity in charge, or is it purely the address of the facility itself?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: My adviser and I are not sure we entirely understood the question. We can provide information in relation to when information is provided into the portal that will provide information to the registry. The hope is that this will flow through to what will be the GoodSAM portal that we have, and it should happen automatically that the information flows through.

It is also worth noting that we are working in relation to whether there could be a functionality that enabled photos to be uploaded. It would not be a mandatory feature necessarily, but it would help to further identify the locations in that regard.

Mr TELFER: I am not trying to be pedantic. I am interested in this in particular because there is a risk that if there is an incomplete or what could potentially be thought of as an inaccurate description of where the location is, then once again the entity opens itself up to a 2½ thousand dollar maximum fine. The obligation is on whichever entity is doing this. You are uncertain whether it is an address or a location within the facility at this point; if that is the case, will it be the detail within the regulation which you expect will designate that?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Every situation is going to be different. Certainly we will be working to make sure that the portal makes it as easy as possible for people to give the most accurate location possible with the appropriate ways—whether it is apps, whether it is the registry or whether it is dispatches from SAAS—that can navigate people to where the closest one is to them in the most accurate way. Obviously that relies upon getting accurate inputs into the system, so devising a way in which we can get those accurate inputs is going to be an important element of the process.

Clause passed.

Clause 13.

Mrs HURN: There is one question that I know the member for Frome and our shadow minister for aged care was particularly eager for me to ask the minister in relation not only to this clause but also, I suppose, to the broader awareness campaign, the software and the accessibility of information. I wonder whether the minister has engaged with—or whether he is aware that the honourable member in the other place, Frank Pangallo, has engaged with—the Council on the Ageing in relation to accessibility of information.

I think it is one of those situations where we live in a modern world where people have access to all this information on a smartphone and will be able to have access to it by their laptops and all those things. Specifically for the older community in our society, what engagement has been done with them? How will they ensure that they, too, have access to this information?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The good alignment that has occurred here is that we have already been working in relation to the GoodSAM app, which has been used around the world. We are looking to roll it out here—and a significant amount of work has already taken place in relation to that—so the alignment in relation to the AED legislation will connect with that. As that is rolled out, I think accessibility will be a key element. This is a standard piece of software in many regards that is used around the world and has been tried and tested, so there are certainly benefits from using something that we know has experience in other countries around the world.

In relation to whether there has been specific consultation by the Hon. Frank Pangallo or others with the Council on the Ageing, I am not sure. I certainly acknowledge that one of the things they do advocate on this is in relation to digital accessibility, in terms of making digital elements as easy to use as possible. I think one of the concerns they raise is more broadly in relation to whether things are only available in a digital form, and that leaves out people who are unable to connect with those digital platforms.

This is obviously a specific clause asking for us to have a digital platform and software. I think the key thing is that, as part of this work, dispatches from SA Ambulance will get a picture of—firstly, there are going to be a lot more defibrillators than are available now, and also SAAS will know the locations of a lot more defibrillators than they do now because currently there is not a requirement that people register them with SAAS. There are many people who do, but it is not necessarily a requirement. There will be a much greater possibility that, when people are speaking to SAAS in relation to an emergency, the dispatcher will be able to navigate them to a nearby AED without the requirement for the user and the caller to have digital capability with them.

Mr TEAGUE: To understand, and in the context of technology moving very quickly, is it the case that the clause 13 software provision really explains the necessary information for the purposes of clause 12(2)(a), in that if the register is purposive, which it appears to be, and there is a compliance element therefore that is associated with the provision of information for the purposes of the register—and in turn there is intended to be a software application that is going to provide directions to the location—it appears to be necessary to read clause 12 together with clause 13, but the register is, for the time being, going to be dependent on, I suppose, the level of accuracy of the location provided by the obliged person subject to clause 12(4)? The minister might care to confirm that or otherwise.

The question then is in terms of where things might be right now or moving on to. Has there been any consideration about identification of location built into the device and any prospect of planning for that so that the register might become smart and do away with the compliance aspect before too long, if not perhaps prior to the commencement?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I do not have advice in that regard. I guess future directions and potentials will have to be considered over time.

Clause passed.

Clause 14.

Mrs HURN: Can the minister provide some clarity around what the awareness campaign proposed in this clause looks like; furthermore, can he also confirm that SA Health will be the responsible agency for delivering such an awareness campaign and how much will it cost?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: No, yes, no. Obviously It has not been designed yet because we are still debating the legislation. The provision under clause 11 makes it clear that the Minister for Health is in charge of this part, and costing will have to be considered as part of the development of the awareness raising.

Mrs HURN: Perhaps I could provide some further information for the member, as just because it is being organised under the relevant minister does not mean that it is SA Health that is responsible for the advertising campaign. Indeed, there are often examples where a centralised agency, for instance DPC, may take responsibility. Nevertheless, I thank the minister for confirming that it will indeed be SA Health.

When it comes to promotion, how will this awareness strategy be prescribed over a five-year period? How will it be monitored over the five-year period, and what will be the indicator or measure of success over that five-year period? Importantly, why five years?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Why five years? I presume that in the drafting process it was considered an appropriate amount of time to make sure that these laws are appropriately promoted to the community. In relation to a number of the other details that are being sought, that will have to be developed if this legislation passes, and considered further.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

Mrs HURN: How was it that the honourable member in the other place has determined a three-year period? By that I am referring to clause 15(2), which provides:

(2) The scheme must ensure that the persons referred to in subsection (1) are provided with training within 3 years of the relevant day and within each 3 year period thereafter.

I am also hoping that in the same breath the minister might like to outline or clarify whose direct responsibility it will be for ensuring that the AED training is prescribed, and if he could just outline, as well, if it will just be through the usual process when you are getting all your other training.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I know for a fact that one of the organisations that Mr Pangallo has been involved with in the development of this has been St John Ambulance, which does undertake a lot of training for first aid across the state. The advice I have received—we will check this and, if there is an issue, certainly correct it to the shadow minister—is that a lot of the training that takes place is in relation to that three-year time frame. I presume that is where there has been a decision to align those two elements in this clause.

Mr TELFER: I have a question on the cost of the training program. Who does the minister envision will be responsible for paying the cost of the training required pursuant to this section of the bill?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think the idea is that this would be part of the curriculum for people who do training already. Clearly, there are already a number of people who do training in relation to the Education and Care Services National Law and also the Work Health and Safety Act. At this stage, we are not envisaging that any other regulations will be made under subclause (1)(c), so we are not envisaging that there would be any particular additional costs in this regard.

Mr TELFER: In terms of persons or organisations who may be exposed to potential additional civil liability as a result of the operation of the bill, what does the minister believe their exposure will be in comparison to this part of the bill, maybe existing arrangements I guess?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think we talked a bit about civil liability yesterday, but I have certainly received no advice that there are any issues regarding civil liability in relation to this clause.

Mr TEAGUE: Maybe this is a suitable opportunity to extend thanks for his assistance—and SAAS's assistance more broadly but particularly the chief executive, Mr Elliott—in relation to the bill. The training obligation is one that is applied perhaps to a reasonably broad number of those who are likely to be using the AED, but it appears on the face of the clause that there is no intent to be comprehensive. Rather, it is a provision to extend training to those who otherwise have an obligation.

I am thinking then, particularly in relation to those in the SA Ambulance Service and other responders who might themselves be making use of the published register, is there any particular intent for this to serve to enhance the capacity of SAAS and other emergency responders in terms of their capacity to access these devices, or is the training provision really just covering as broad a range of anticipated users as can practicably be legislated for?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The advice I have received is that our understanding is that such training in relation to defibs is already being provided as part of these packages and vocational training that occurs under these particular acts. I suspect that the introduction of this clause was merely to make sure that that is the case. We do not envisage that there would be any particular change that would have to occur.

I mention my own experience of first-aid training, as part of my bronze medallion certificate at Moana Surf Life Saving Club. Certainly, the use of a defibrillator was part of the training in relation to that, and I am sure that it is part of the training of every first-aid certificate. It is also worth reminding everybody in the community of how easy these devices are to use. You do not even necessarily need training.

Part of our efforts will be to make sure that we are communicating with the public not to be scared of using an AED, that it steps you through the process. It is as easy as possible and the shock is only administered when the device is able to detect that that shock is required. Otherwise, it can be very helpful to talk people through CPR. In particular, for people who are a bit rusty in doing CPR, it will help to talk them through what is required as part of that process.

Clause passed.

Clause 16.

Mr TELFER: On reflection of the fact that we have a registry, and not just a registry but a piece of software which then allows anyone to know exactly where every single AED is, has the minister received any advice that the very public nature of their location would lead to any additional damage, destruction or removal of them? What would be envisioned by the scenario which we have at the moment, where it is only if you are in the vicinity and you see the signage that you would know where it would be?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: We certainly do not have any advice in that regard, that by having a public list or an app that people could locate AEDs it is going to lead to people seeking them out to damage them. Obviously, I suspect—and this is not something that I have advice on, but it is my reasonable presumption—if that were to occur, it is likely to be a spontaneous, if not drunken, attempt by people to do something stupid, rather than something where people are undertaking research into that act before doing it. It is not something I have received advice on, in relation to it being a significant issue with the AEDs that are currently across the community either.

Mr TELFER: I recognise that currently any damage that would be done would be spontaneous, to use the minister's words. My point was there potentially could be one which would be more planned out. What is the current penalty in place for someone who damages, destroys or removes an AED that is in place at the moment? Does the minister know whether there is a specific penalty in place currently?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: To the best of my knowledge, there is not a specific penalty that is currently in place in relation to an AED specifically, but it would be dealt with in the same way as other property damage under the Summary Offences Act.

Clause passed.

Clause 17.

Mrs HURN: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Hurn–1]—

Page 9, line 30 [clause 17(2)(c)]—Delete '$10,000' and substitute '$2,000'

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): Do you wish to speak to that, member for Schubert?

Mrs HURN: No.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs HURN: Minister, I refer to clause 17(2)(c), which states:

(c) provide for fines, not exceeding $10 000, for offences against the regulations;

What are the regulations that the clause is referring to and what are the offences? Presumably it is just about going contrary to the regulations, but perhaps the minister could elaborate slightly.

Part of the fundamental reason why we have made another commonsense amendment of reducing the $10,000 fine down to $2,000 is specifically that we do not actually know what regulations are being referred to in this piece of legislation. That is not surprising, given they are regulations. Again, this is in line to our overall approach that we have to the penalties. If the minister could elaborate what regulations he is referring to or what he is envisaging, that would be helpful.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The regulations have not been drafted yet, but I think there are a range of different options that have been set out in relation to this clause that gives the government options in terms of how the regulations could be drafted. In regard to a number of the questions that have been raised about this or that particular thing, we have been very clear that, through the three years for private sector implementation, we will certainly be happy to engage if particular issues arise that need addressing. I think the regulations give us the ability to do that.

In relation to whether there are any particular fines that we are envisaging to be part of the regulations, there are no plans from the government at this stage to do that, but obviously that has been drafted by the Hon. Mr Pangallo to give that option. Obviously, if there were to be consideration of that by the government down the track, then that would be a matter on which the parliament would have oversight through the Legislative Review Committee and then ultimately potentially through a disallowance in the parliament.

Mr TELFER: Will the minister give an undertaking that he will consult with those who would be impacted by the bill before enacting regulations pursuant to this bill?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think it depends on the nature of the particular regulations, but if there are particular industry groups that would be directly affected I think we have already made clear that we would be seeking to work with them on any issues that arise. It is a bit hard to answer because it is a hypothetical question about regulations that do not exist yet.

Usually there is an approach of drafting regulations and consulting on them at least, if not on a limited but sometimes on a wide basis. We will have to see what the regulations are that we need to consider and whether they are ones that would necessitate impact of a broad range of people or a narrow range of people and hence what the level of consultation is that may be required as part of that process. I know that that is something the Legislative Review Committee keeps a close eye on as part of their consideration of regulations as to whether there has been the appropriate level of consultation that has gone into them.

Mr TELFER: I am interested whether the regulations that may be developed could reduce the scope of the application of the bill. For example, could a regulation remove a specific class of building or facility from the definition of 'designated building or facility'?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: My reading of subclause (2)(a) is that it does give the ability for exemptions to be provided in relation to specific areas. That could be a potential to exempt a person or a class of persons from the application of this act. I think there are a number of other provisions that could be helpful in that regard. There also could be considerations of definitions of particular areas; we have already discussed today issues of particular definitions of some of the areas for some premises such as retirement villages. If there was to be, and I am not saying that there is, any uncertainty in that, then we could certainly consider that through the regulation process.

Mr TELFER: I have another quick question. As to this clause—Regulations and fee notices—I am curious whether the government intends to use the regulations to set fees for the registration process which is contemplated in clause 12 of the bill which we discussed earlier.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: There are no plans at this stage to do that.

Clause passed.

Clause 18.

Mrs HURN: In relation to clause 18, specifically 18(2), reads:

The Minister must, within 6 months of the commencement of this section, have copies of the report laid before both Houses of Parliament.

That is about preparing a report on how the government will provide support to persons who are required to install AEDs. I am wondering whether any consideration has been given or whether the minister can give an undertaking that beyond the six-month period there will be a regular reporting—for instance, when it comes to compliance and how successful the awareness campaign has been and also to the overall implementation.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: To use a turn of phrase from the member for Heysen, the work that this subclause is trying to do is trying to make sure that the minister has to come forward to the parliament and say, 'How are you helping in terms of people's support for the implementation of these sections to make sure that people have the opportunity, whether it is a grant program or other means, to get support?'

I think we have already indicated that we are considering a grant program over the course of the next few years to help people with their installation, particularly the not-for-profit rather than the for-profit people who may be affected. That will be considered over time, and that report will be issued in the parliament. I do not think that this envisaged either (a) that there will be everlasting support that will be provided or (b) that the reporting on grant programs and so on would be every year, etc. This was really in terms of trying to make sure that the minister provides some information to the parliament on how the government is helping with the implementation of the act.

Mrs HURN: I appreciate what the minister is saying, in terms of needing to have that immediate oversight as to the success of the implementation. I wonder whether he sees benefit in providing ongoing updates to the parliament on a yearly basis as to the success of the program, particularly in relation to compliance and the issues that we outlined throughout that entire process. I also wonder whether he sees benefit in the government providing those details. I think it is something that has received what I would say is unanimous support within the parliament in the other place and in this house, albeit we had some amendments in relation to the penalties. I think everyone wants this to succeed.

Throughout the journey of this committee stage, I think we fleshed out some practical considerations or some practical bumps in this legislation that will need to be ironed out in the regulations. Acknowledging of course that six months is a relatively short period of time for legislation that is ongoing and legislation that also has specific parameters of five years when it comes to the awareness campaign and all those things, I wonder whether the minister sees any justification in ongoing reporting, potentially on a yearly basis.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: It is not something I have envisaged, nor is it something I am necessarily pushing for. We have not proposed any amendments in that regard. I think that there are a number of other ways in which the matter could be monitored. There may well be avenues where SA Ambulance may give an update via their annual report. There may well be the opportunity for accountability through the parliament in the usual manner in terms of how the scheme is operating. We have not, therefore, recommended a more regular report that would be provided in addition to what is currently provided in clause 18.

Mr TELFER: Will the report that is envisioned pursuant to clause 18 set out the annual costs imposed by the bill on the state government, local government, the private sector and the not-for-profit sector?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: No, I think what this is trying to do is outline what support the government is providing to install an AED and particularly how that affects different sectors. As I have already outlined, we are considering a grant program that will be available to help not-for-profit organisations in particular that would be affected.

Clause passed.

Schedule.

Mr TEAGUE: This might be a question for cross-reference. The transitional provision appears to provide an extra year for persons who are not the Crown before the obligations kick in. Again, as a matter of practicality and to take one particular example, is there any example of circumstances in which an emergency services organisation uses a vehicle not owned by the emergency services organisation; that is, are they leasing the vehicle from a private owner, in which case is there an example where there may be a gap in the otherwise intended commencement of the obligation on public authorities? Is it otherwise the intent for the purposes of the transition to provide for such a clear line; that is, the intent is that it applies to the Crown in every respect from 2025 but not otherwise until 2026?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: In relation to emergency services vehicles, I am not aware of particular circumstances. However, that is not to say that there could not be some where there would be leased or private vehicles that could be utilised as part of those organisations, but the vast majority at the very least would be owned by the government.

I think that the broader question you are asking is that, from our perspective, there is a very clear demarcation as far as the government is concerned. We are aiming for 1 January 2025, so there is another year for everybody who is not the government. I do not think we are going to be trying to find particular loopholes to get around that. I think that has been an understanding that we have.

Obviously there have been discussions about trains and trams and things, and various ownerships and private management, contracts, etc., but for all of that we are working on the basis that those provisions on the government come into operation on 1 January 2025 whether or not there is a private operator who is running those services.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.J. PICTON (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (17:13): 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