HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-10-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Motions

Gayle's Law

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. C. Bonaros:

That the regulations made under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 concerning remote area attendance made on 16 May 2019 and laid on the table of this council on 4 June 2019, be disallowed.

(Continued from 25 September 2019.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (18:16): I would like to make a very brief contribution on this motion. Initially I was very sympathetic to the motion and was inclined to support the disallowance. I had had discussion with the family of the late Gayle Woodford, who indicated they supported the disallowance motion and urged me to do the same. They spoke of the dangers to remote workers and explained why the burden of making these decisions should not fall to the workers. I gave them an undertaking to support the disallowance motion.

However, earlier this week the Minister for Health wrote to me, advising me that, should the disallowance motion succeed, it would have several consequences, including some practitioners not being covered by the regulations, and the requirement for second responders to have working with children safety checks removed. The minister outlined that they would be working with stakeholders and the Woodford family on new regulations, and this would be undertaken within a month.

Upon receipt of this letter, I contacted the Woodford family, who indicated they were comfortable with what the minister was suggesting in his letter. As such, I will not be supporting the motion on the basis of the undertaking the minister has made and, most importantly, on the basis that the family of Ms Woodford is satisfied with this outcome.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (18:18): I rise on behalf of the government to indicate that we will not support this motion. Gayle's Law and the regulations that this motion seeks to disallow came into operation on 1 July this year. Together they provide better protection for health practitioners working in remote areas of this state. The current regulations were developed in consultation with key stakeholders, including the Woodford family, and organisations that deliver front-line health services in remote parts of South Australia.

The regulations seek to strengthen and clarify the operation of the law. This includes providing a limited degree of flexibility on those rare occasions when every second matters and a second responder may not be immediately available. Such is the reality of sustaining and delivering health services in some of the most remote parts of this state.

As minister, I recognise the Woodford family's ongoing concerns with the current regulations. To that end, I have given the Woodford family a firm commitment to work with them and other stakeholders on a revised set of regulations, to be finalised and promulgated within one month. I want to make it abundantly clear that, if the motion before the council is successful, the government will not be reissuing the current regulations.

I fear that some members may be operating under the misconception that a potential prorogation would inhibit the capacity of the council to disallow regulations. I have sought the advice of the Clerk who has confirmed that any prorogation of the parliament will not interfere with the council's ability to disallow the revised regulations. Specifically, section 5B of the Subordinate Legislation Act says that sitting days need not fall within the same session of parliament. In other words, no matter when the revised regulations of Gayle's Law are promulgated, even if parliament is prorogued in the meantime this council will have the full 14 sitting days to give the notice of disallowance. Other members may be concerned in terms of the government's commitment to make fresh regulations.

I want to make this abundantly clear: I have given the Woodford family a firm commitment to finalise a new set of regulations within a month. I give the same undertaking to this council. The revised regulations will be promulgated before the end of this sitting year. If the current set of regulations are disallowed before the revised ones are ready to take their place, the statute itself will continue to operate but without the regulations they will be weakened and not strengthened during the intervening period. Gayle's Law will continue to operate but in a constrained and far less comprehensive way.

For that one-month period, Gayle's Law will not apply in the District Council of Coober Pedy or the Municipal Council of Roxby Downs. It will not apply to health practitioners employed by organisations that receive all their funding from the commonwealth. It will not apply to any nurse, midwife or medical professional registered to practise in South Australia who operates as a private provider in a remote area unless they receive funding from the government of South Australia.

For that one month period, second responders engaged under Gayle's Law will not have to hold a driver's licence nor will they have to hold a current working with children safety check. If the motion passes in the affirmative, I sincerely hope no harm comes to South Australians as a consequence of no regulations being in place, be they a health practitioner working in a remote area or someone seeking care from one of those practitioners. If any such harm should occur, the people of South Australia will be right to hold to account those members of this council who support the disallowance of the current regulations.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (18:21): The reasons for this disallowance have now been canvassed extensively in this place. The minister has, as I noted earlier today, in a letter dated two days ago recognised the need for a new set of regulations. I mentioned earlier that I was heartened by his comments in recent days that he has now accepted the current regulations are unacceptable. He has also indicated to me his intention to consult over a revised set of regulations in consultation with stakeholders and, of course, with the Woodford family, and I, for one, will hold him to that undertaking.

In fact, I urge him to take seriously—very seriously—the concerns that have been raised in this place and throughout the inquiry process, which we spoke of just a short time ago, and to come to a mutually agreeable outcome in line with the intent of Gayle's Law, taking into account the very valid concerns that have been raised by a number of stakeholders including the ANMF(SA), SASMOA and others. Whilst I am sure, in fact it is clear, that the minister would prefer that I not proceed with this motion, the reality is that, firstly, we do not want to inadvertently lose the opportunity to disallow what is a substandard set of regulations.

I appreciate the advice that the minister has just put on the record but I can confirm that we have also sought advice in relation to the same issue, and that advice appears to be entirely inconsistent. I note that the Hon. Tammy Franks has also highlighted earlier today the potential ramifications of a prorogation of parliament. Pressing ahead today is, with respect to the minister, something—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: No, it is disrespectful.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Well, it is not disrespectful.

The PRESIDENT: It is not a debate, the Hon. Ms Bonaros. Please do not respond to the interjections—

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Sorry, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: —and please keep on summing up the debate.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I think the minister has some nerve coming to this place with completely unacceptable regulations which completely undermine and water down the intent of Gayle's Law and then suggesting that we who vote in favour of this disallowance motion would somehow be responsible if something happened to one of those nurses. Something did happen to Gayle Woodford. She did a risk assessment and she is dead. That is the reality of the situation. She was raped and she was murdered, and she had undertaken a self-risk assessment. That is the reality of what we are dealing with.

So the minister does have some nerve to come in here and tell us that we will be responsible if something were to happen to another front-line officer until they get these regulations right. You have had ample opportunity to get these regulations right, and you have failed to do so. We went through an inquiry process which was an inquiry in name only; it was not a genuine inquiry process. We did not consider meaningful reforms to these regulations during that process. We had a minority report which reflected meaningful reforms, which you could have looked at, but you failed to do so.

So to come in here now and suggest to us that somehow we will be responsible if something were to happen to another front-line officer is, with respect, completely disrespectful not only to us but to Gayle Woodford's legacy. With those words, I say this to the minister: you owe it to your front-line service staff, you owe it to the Woodford family, to do better. I, for one, will not back down on this disallowance motion, and I will not accept a substandard set of regulations.

I would like to thank the Woodfords, in particular Keith Woodford and also Gayle's sister, Andrea Hannemann, for their continued support on this issue. I would also like to thank the members of the ANMF(SA), who are present here today, for their continued support on this issue. I will not be derailed by the comments that the minister has made today. I will say this in relation to the Woodfords. I know that we have all been speaking to the Woodfords, and I continue to speak to Keith in particular very regularly. I can assure honourable members that, as far as he is concerned, he is not satisfied with the regulations that are before us and any alternative regulations that have been discussed to date. His message to me in relation to this issue has been absolutely crystal clear. For that reason, I will be proceeding with the disallowance motion.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 12

Noes 9

Majority 3

AYES
Bonaros, C. (teller) Bourke, E.S. Franks, T.A.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J.
Ngo, T.T. Pangallo, F. Parnell, M.C.
Pnevmatikos, I. Scriven, C.M. Wortley, R.P.
NOES
Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G. (teller)

Motion thus carried.

Sitting extended beyond 18:30 on motion of Hon. R.I. Lucas.

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