HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-02-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC HEALTH BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 November 2011.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:49): I rise to indicate support for the South Australian Public Health Bill, which will replace the Public and Environmental Health Act 1987. As has been noted in debate in the other place, this bill has been a long time coming in that a review was initiated by a former Liberal health minister, Dean Brown, as part of national competition policy, but the review was not completed. I note that this current review commenced in 2006 with consultation in 2009 to the bill that we now have before us.

I understand that there has been extensive consultation, particularly with local government authorities, and that a number of their concerns have been incorporated into the final version of the bill. The bill updates what is modern practice in terms of public health, in that, as was put to me, the old regimes arose from concerns about rats and vermin and so forth, whereas this has a different framework and therefore updates a number of practices.

There are a number of principles which are referred to from clause 6 of this bill, which probably reflect modern management practices. I note that we have inserted clause 6—Precautionary Principle, into various environmental acts, including the marine parks. There is a proportionate principle, which I think is entirely appropriate; sustainability, which is a bit of a buzz word that can be a little bit unclear, depending on its context; the principle of prevention, which I think is to be endorsed; population focus, which I was initially concerned on reading in that I think we need to be wary that in having a population-based health system we do not neglect the needs of individuals, but I note that that particular clause does refer to individuals; participation, which, as a Liberal, we particularly support and which states that, 'Individuals and communities should be encouraged to take responsibility for their own health', which is something that I think can get lost in certain debates and people were treated as victims; the partnership principle, which I think is, again, to do with modern practices; and equity.

So, a number of those principles, I think, outline the underpinning of the intent of this piece of legislation. Clause 14(6) states:

Any requirement restricting the liberty of a person should not be imposed unless it is the only effective way remaining to ensure that the health of the public is not endangered or likely to be endangered.

I think that that is also to be endorsed. There is a more defined role for the minister and local government, which is to be commended. There is a new role, which is evolving from the current role, for a chief public health officer, which is to be a statutory position. I think that is positive. That officer will report regularly to parliament and have some contact with the parliament in relation to public health matters. A South Australian public health council is to be established, which I think is probably a rebadging of existing provisions, and there are requirements for the making of public health policies. In particular, clause 55—that is, the state public health policy—can be disallowed by parliament.

There are some fairly strong provisions in this legislation which relate to various powers, and those are contained within division 2: power to require a person to undergo an examination or test, require counselling, give directions, require detention, and so forth. I indicate, again, that my learned colleague, the Hon. Stephen Wade, has an amendment to one of those powers, and I am sure that he will go through those in the course of debate.

I also have a question that I would like to place on the record, which is in the definition of wastewater and whether, because of this particular bill, the recycling and consumption of wastewater will be excluded by these provisions, in particular the Salisbury wetlands, which most people would be very familiar with. I have consumed a bottle of that and lived to tell the story that it is, in our view, quite safe. So, I ask whether it is the government's intention to exclude such waters from being able to be consumed because of these provisions.

There are also a number of confidentiality clauses, which I think are aligning the legislation with the World Health Organisation best practice, and I think that those are to be commended. In the past, people who handled that information may have thought it was appropriate to share it with others. Obviously, in these modern days, we understand that that is not appropriate and that people do have rights, which ought to be protected.

The other matter I wish to discuss is the voluntary codes of practice for industry. I think it is to be commended that it is much more of a partnership arrangement that industry will be brought into finding solutions if, for instance, chicken, pig or some other intensive animal husbandry industry has an outbreak of a particular virus and that they will not be treated to the paratroopers but will be treated as partners in trying to find a solution. With those brief words, I indicate that we will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to the committee stage of the debate.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:56): Again, I rise to speak on behalf of the Greens on the South Australian Public Health Bill 2010, which is intended to update and replace the previous Public and Environmental Health Act 1987 and provide what is termed to be a foundation for a flexible and responsible instrument to deal with public health issues now and into the future. It was certainly presented to us as a bill that takes a very outmoded act that we currently operate with in South Australia and provides us with an instrument that should serve us well for the new millennium.

The bill intends to promote, protect and preserve public health, and I would think that nobody in this place would stand in the way of that. It has a set of principles and guidelines for the administrators and provides for the creation of a statutory officer (a new position) and a chief public health officer for South Australia, which position will have overarching powers. It also establishes a public health council. As previous speakers have indicated, this, in some ways, is more of a reorganisation of current positions and expertise into something that is more streamlined and perhaps more transparent. It also provides for a public health review panel.

We are assured that this bill will allow for a more rapid response to public health interests, and I hope that is the case. It will also provide stronger powers to counter communicable diseases, including raising the penalties for endangering public health; it seeks to improve the coordination between public health officials; and it provides codes of practice for dealing with chronic, non-communicable diseases. The bill also provides, I think quite excitingly—I get excited about these things, but not so much as my honourable colleague, Mr Parnell, who has just joined me—for the development of a state public health plan.

At this point, I must acknowledge that, while I hold this portfolio for the Greens, my honourable colleague has, in fact, decades of experience in this area and will keenly pursue the debate as it goes through the committee stage. I thank the minister for the briefing that was provided to me and my honourable colleague by the minister's office, facilitated by Alexandra Keen. That briefing provided us with the expertise of Mr Danny Broderick, Dr Chris Reynolds and Dr Stephen Christley, who is Executive Director, Public Health and Clinical Coordination. That briefing was provided in the last few days.

I note that bill has been a long time in coming, but those of us who are newer members in this place do not have that background, so I have had some difficulty in tracking down the various 59 submissions, I think, that were originally made. While there has certainly been an extensive consultation process, I note that, as I approached some of the organisations who made those initial consultation submissions, some of them were unaware that the final bill had, in fact, been presented to the parliament.

Those who were aware were not completely sure which, if any, of their concerns had been addressed. I note that perhaps, when a consultation is done, it would be a reasonable expectation that copies of the final result are sent to those who participate in such a process. Also, I have undertaken some consultation on behalf of the Greens and we have contacted the Local Government Association, Environmental Health Australia and also Doctors for the Environment. I must indicate that Doctors for the Environment are not satisfied, both in terms of a response from the government to their concerns about this bill and also to the approach taken by the government here.

Other peak bodies, such as SACOSS, that were able to respond to us have indicated that in fact in the time frame given for this final debate of the bill they do not have the capacity to fully engage in debate on this important topic, and I would note that is because they have energies directed at such issues as the energy retail laws also before us at this time. I think it is a sad state of affairs when our peak advocacy bodies are not in a position to be able to provide full advice for the members of this house to ensure that we have the best debate we possibly could.

I will refer to the Doctors for the Environment submission, which raised many concerns and also the idea of health impact assessments as possibly a way forward. The Doctors for the Environment submission said:

If the South Australian Public Health Bill is to directly address threats to public health that are now recognised by the World Health Organisation and the health profession more generally, the Rann government will need to lead South Australia beyond the horizon of the legislation in other states and territories. The bill must empower us to address problems which have the potential to impact significantly on public health but fall outside the traditional definitions, for example, the effects of global environmental change and its many components, including climate change.

I was assured in the briefing on this bill that, in fact, this new framework will, indeed, allow us to address climate change as a public health priority, and I look forward to seeing that eventuate, but I seek assurances from the government that, indeed, climate change will be addressed as a public health priority within this new framework.

I also note that in this state we have adopted a Health in All Policies approach and, while I understand that does in some ways address the concepts and benefits that a health impact assessment could bring to our public health debates in this state, I would seek from the government some clarification as to whether health impact assessments were considered in the development of this bill and, if they were, why they were not included in the final content.

I also briefly refer to an amendment that I will move when this bill goes into committee. It relates to an issue that has occupied the minds of jurists and human rights experts for at least the past four decades (and I note that that is my entire life), that is, the right of citizens to a healthy environment. The call for the inclusion of such a right into both domestic and international law can, in fact, be traced back to the United Nations Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment in 1972 (and, yes, I am older than that). This was a call repeated at the Rio Conference on Environment and Development in 1992.

The right to a healthy environment is now incorporated into dozens of international treaties and many countries have elevated this right to the highest level by incorporating it, in fact, into not only their acts but also their constitutions. These countries include South Africa and South Korea, and our neighbour and one of the newest nations on this planet, East Timor (Timor Leste). Other countries have the right incorporated into domestic legislation (such as Indonesia and Mexico).

As members would know, international treaties that Australia has signed are not actually worth the paper they are signed on in South Australia. We are the only state to have a special act of parliament undermining the worth of treaties in our executive decision-making. This is a shame, and I know my honourable colleague Mr Parnell has attempted to rectify this in the past, and I am sure the Greens will continue to work on this issue. The Greens also believe that it is time as a state that we showed we are serious about public and environmental health and we incorporated a right to a healthy environment into this bill.

Finally, if members want to see examples of the benefits that such a legislated right can have on a society, they should look at the achievements of Mr M.C. Mehta, the famous Indian environmental advocate and lawyer, who was a guest of our state at the Festival of Ideas just a few years ago in 2009. His championing of the right to a healthy environment has seen some of the most important advances in public health in India, ranging from cleaning up the Ganges to the relocation of noxious industry away from residential areas.

As government members would be aware, the Festival of Ideas, along with the Thinker in Residence Program—which saw Ilona Kickbusch come out and the health in all policies ideas take root—are personal favourites of our Premier. The Greens believe that, when some of the best thinkers in the world come to our state, perhaps we should pay attention to what they say. I wonder what they would say about issues such as the lead levels in Port Pirie and a lack of commitment from the government to continue the tenby10 program, which has now been rebadged as Ten for them, and I hope that is more than a single page on a website and that we will see reporting back to this chamber and in the other place on a regular basis about the lead levels affecting particularly children in that region.

I also hope we will see health impact taken more seriously, along with environmental impact, and that we will not see situations such as Newport Quays in the future. With that, I wholeheartedly look forward to the committee stage of the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Lee.

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