HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-07-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Emergency Management (Quarantine Fees and Penalty) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 July 2020.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:28): I rise to speak to this bill and indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition. In simple terms, this bill seeks to achieve two things. Firstly, it allows fees to be charged for people who must quarantine in hotels and, secondly, to add up to two years' imprisonment to the maximum penalty for breaches of directions by the State Coordinator.

As we debate this seventh or eighth piece of emergency COVID-19 legislation, I am reminded of the government trying to have parliament sit for just one day per month during this period. That was not the will of the chamber. The crossbench and the opposition insisted that we sit according to our normal schedule, just as the people of South Australia expected during this time, and obviously it was fortuitous that we did so. In doing so, we have made sure that we are here to pass legislation as and when the need arises.

We have had other bits of legislation, though, come up that the government has not passed. The opposition and the Greens both introduced similar bills to extend presumptive workers compensation for people who contract COVID-19. The same desire to protect South Australians and South Australian workers, in the case of those private members' bills, was not met with the same relish by the government as for other bills that have come to this place.

The Labor Party has supported the government on all of its COVID measures. Amongst others, we supported changes to the Coroner's Act, the Emergency Management Act, the Public Health Act, commercial and residential leases, and even to a $15.3 billion Appropriation Bill with no clear budget. We have been constructive, we have put forward suggestions and we are here to ensure that we do what we can from opposition to pursue the safety and health of South Australians.

The government has—and quite rightly—repeatedly talked about the unprecedented nature of the emergency we face, but this does not seem to extend to managing legislation. Throughout many of the COVID-19 legislative changes, the opposition and the crossbench have been provided with bills only on the day before or even on the day of being required to vote on them. The Attorney-General made a public announcement about this bill on Monday of last week. The opposition asked for copies of the legislation in writing on three occasions before then and at the end of that week, that is, Friday of last week.

The opposition was sent a bill—but not this bill—on Monday this week at 2.40pm. No briefing was offered or received on that particular bill. The only information provided to the opposition before the bill arrived in the House of Assembly was as follows:

The Emergency Management (Quarantine Fees) Amendment Bill 2020 will amend the Emergency Management Act 2004 to allow for the charging of a fee to recover costs associated with providing quarantine services in relation to an emergency declared under that Act.

Under the amendments, this power to determine a fee will be vested with the State Coordinator for the emergency management or delegated to an Assistant State Coordinator. The bill provides for flexibility for who the fee will apply to and this will be determined by the State Coordinator.

The fees will apply for any international arrival who has entered a hotel quarantine from 12.01am on Saturday 18 July 2020. This will not apply to travellers who purchased their ticket before 12.00pm on 13 July 2020.

Waiver arrangements will be available for people currently in quarantine and for people experiencing financial hardship or vulnerability, and payment plans will be made available.

Information, including fees, is also available here—

and it lists the SA government COVID-19 website.

The information that was provided to the opposition—not the bill but the information that was provided to the opposition—did not even have the correct name for the bill. The information from the Attorney-General's office does not mention any penalty changes. That is because the bill we were given and the information about it did not include them. The bill we are debating here today, we understand, was still being drafted on the morning that it was to be introduced to parliament.

The opposition finally received a copy of the bill we are now faced with 15 minutes before parliament began sitting for the week and a mere 20 minutes before debate began on the bill. We have spoken a number of times about the inadequacy of how the government treats the opposition and the crossbench, particularly when it comes to emergency bills in this place. Unfortunately, the Attorney-General's pride appears to outrank good process and efficiency. The government seems completely incapable of going through good processes to get the desired outcome.

The opposition announced more than a week ago it would seek to amend the Emergency Management Act to allow for terms of imprisonment amongst the maximum penalties for breaching directions from the State Coordinator. We spoke about our proposal in detail because the public ought to know and we should be debating our ideas in public.

On radio last Friday, the Attorney-General specifically rebutted and ruled out Labor's proposal to add up to two years' prison for breaches of directions. The State Coordinator later spoke on radio and supported the idea of having a gaol term as part of the sanctions for a breach of directions.

The opposition provided a copy of its bill to introduce up to two years' prison time for a breach of directions to the government on Monday of this week before we were provided with the bill that did not have that in there. The opposition also offered to brief the Attorney or her office on our bill. The offer was not accepted.

The opposition drafted its bill when a magistrate was left with no option for imprisonment when dealing with four offenders who stowed away on a train. That case was widely reported. If the changes the Labor opposition were proposing had been in place, the magistrate could have ordered a period of detention of anywhere from one day to two years. The Attorney-General announced on radio this week a completely opposite position, and that she would introduce prison terms but could not explain exactly how or when. That only happened on Tuesday of this week.

The Attorney-General could have delivered all the outcomes of this bill faster if they had simply progressed their original bill on quarantine fees and supported the opposition bill on penalties. In addition to charging for quarantine fees, this bill now proposes to amend section 28 of the Emergency Management Act to add the words 'or imprisonment for two years' on top of the existing maximum penalty.

Despite this wording being exactly identical to the Labor bill, the Attorney continued to claim that there were differences between the two proposals. The Attorney is right, there were differences between the two proposals. One was drafted and introduced by Labor while the other was drafted and introduced by the Liberals—that is the difference. I am not sure there could be a more simple and clear-cut case of playing politics with public safety.

Having said that, the opposition is glad that this bill now includes a change to the possible maximum penalty for breaching directions of the State Coordinator, but it did not have to come to it as it did, and it should not have come to it as it did. With that, I indicate that we support the intent of the bill. We support the possibility of being able to charge for quarantine and, of course, we support the introduction of the possibility of a prison term because that is the bill we had before parliament earlier this week.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:37): I rise on behalf of the Greens to support this bill, acknowledging that again we are having to deal with quite extraordinary circumstances and address them in a very rushed manner that would not normally be the due process of any parliament. However, we are ready, willing and able to again cooperate to ensure public health and public safety, but note with some caveats that talk of locking people up because they stowed away on a freight train—where a magistrate has decided that they do not have the money to pay the fine—would actually result in a very significant bill to the state to imprison those people rather than simply send them back from whence they came.

In terms of the public health emergency, I get that people are scared and I get that this is an incredibly frightening time, but the idea of putting people in prison and demanding that the magistrate—who was the one who had all the information, who knew the situation that they were dealing with—lock people up has been incredibly disappointing. I think it is more borne of that fear rather than the educated and calm approach that will get us through this public health emergency.

In my briefing with the government I have requested them to outline the situation for people who are overseas who have not been able to return to date. Contrary to claims at a federal level by no less than the Prime Minister, there are many Australians overseas who have had flights cancelled, who have faced the choice of travelling with increasingly exorbitant prices being charged for the few flights that are available and who, through no fault of their own, have been kept away from the safety, relatively and comparatively, that Australia is able to provide them.

They are Australian citizens and at some stage they will start to return. Will they be punished because they were unable to return? If they can show that they made every effort, for example, that their flights were cancelled and so on, will they be able to take advantage of the waivers on these quarantine fees is my simple question of the government today. With that, we look forward to the committee stage of the bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:40): I rise to speak in support of the Emergency Management (Quarantine Fees) Amendment Bill 2020, and also acknowledge the willingness of the crossbench to deal with two bills this week with very little time for considered debate. The bill, as we know, makes provision for the State Coordinator to impose a fee on designated arrivals—new arrivals into South Australia—who are obliged to quarantine in a hotel. It is in response to a national cabinet agreement that all states will move to a user-pays model.

I understand that Queensland, New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Western Australia have already implemented their schemes. Current costs for individuals range between $2,500 in the NT and $3,000 in New South Wales. I think we are looking at the higher end of the scale in SA, so a family of four should expect to pay around $5,000 for their time in quarantine. We have already footed a bill of around $3.5 million, as I understand it, for those individuals who have returned to date.

The intention of this is to alleviate the financial burden on South Australians on the basis that they should not be expected to foot the bill for all returning travellers, especially those who can afford it and have been given ample notice to return home. As we know, and as the Hon. Tammy Franks has just pointed out, many individuals through no fault of their own have not been able to return home, despite quite desperate attempts to do so, and the cost of actually returning home has been extraordinarily high for those individuals.

The imposition of a fee in this bill is retrospective, it is to operate retrospectively from 18 July. My preference would have been for the bill not to apply retrospectively, although I do note that it is a very short time frame we are talking about, but that is something we can discuss further in the committee stage. We have not had the opportunity to be briefed in full on this matter, so that is something I would like to ask the minister.

Some of the questions we will put are: are there people currently in quarantine to whom this will apply? Is the haste due to any anticipated mass influx of returning international students or anybody else? There are myriad questions, to which the minister should be in a position to provide responses. I understand that the fee does not apply to travellers who have purchased the tickets before 13 July, the day on which the government made the media announcement, which is of some comfort.

Most importantly, the State Coordinator will have the power, as I understand it, to issue waivers in cases of financial hardship or cases deemed appropriate. I would certainly be grateful for further details on how this will work. I understand there are grounds for exemption and waivers as well, but if we could get some clarification about what an individual or family would have to do to establish that they cannot afford those fees, and how and in what circumstances they will have access to a waiver, an exemption or even a payment plan of some form if they are enable to pay those fees, that would be appreciated.

My understanding (and I wish to get clarification on this also) is that you will go into quarantine and the matter of how the bill will be paid will then be dealt with subsequent to your quarantine, so we are not requesting people pay up-front—I certainly hope not. I would like clarification from the government in relation to those aspects of the proposal. That is the saving grace of this bill and the basis upon which many of us will support it.

I do wonder whether the government has considered imposing any further fees. I believe the Northern Territory has imposed a further period of quarantine for those individuals who refuse to be tested for COVID-19 upon the completion of their 14-day hotel stay. They are made to quarantine for a further 10 days and are required to foot the bill for that, too. That specifically is for those individuals who, for whatever reason, are refusing to actually undertake a COVID test at the end of their quarantine period. If we could get some answers to those questions, I will feel a lot more comfortable about the swift passage of this bill through this parliament. With those words, I look forward to the next stage of the bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (16:45): I thank the chamber for its patience. I thank the honourable members who have spoken at the second reading, and I look forward to working through the issues as we progress through the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Members in their second reading contributions asked for more clarity on the way the system will work in terms of the eligibility for a waiver of the provisions, what the arrangements are for the repayment schedules and so on. How will that information be made available once it is determined?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The Department for Health and Wellbeing has already needed to engage with the issue of financial hardship in the context of cross-border travel. Some people who have been coming across the border and are required to self-isolate may not have suitable accommodation. In assessing financial hardship, we have been working with the Department of Human Services, which has a significant expertise in the assessment of financial hardship. To be honest, I do not know the details of those processes.

At this stage, SA Health does not have financial hardship assessment criteria, and it is not our immediate intention to develop such criteria. We have been using our partnership with DHS to make that assessment. We are not the first jurisdiction to introduce mandatory hotel quarantine for international travellers; in fact, the national cabinet recently decided that it supported such an approach. Queensland and New South Wales already have schemes. To be frank, ours is substantially modelled on New South Wales.

As this progresses it may well be that, in discussions with other jurisdictions, there might be a benefit in developing a formal policy, but like Queensland and New South Wales, I expect that South Australia will develop detailed FAQs. Certainly, both those jurisdictions have detailed FAQs on issues like financial hardship. The fee waivers, the management plans for payment, the decisions for part payment, etc., will be made on a case-by-case basis.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For the benefit of the member, I have raised some concerns about when a waiver will be imposed, as opposed to some sort of payment option. Can we clarify firstly, as I understand it, that payment will be post-quarantine so that nobody is required to pay before they stay? Secondly, if they are not in a position to be able to afford those payments and they are not granted an exemption or a waiver, will they have the option of some sort of payment plan?

Certainly, it is my understanding from discussions with the Attorney's office—and this may be wrong because I understand it is your portfolio—that those payments would be administered through the Courts Administration Authority. If I am incorrect in my understanding, if it is DHS or the Courts Administration Authority, I would like some clarification on that, and I would like to know how somebody would qualify for a payment option.

My concern is that, if somebody is not able to meet those payments for whatever reasons, then there are obviously flow-on impacts in terms of going through the Courts Administration Authority. If you miss payments or do not make payments, we know that there are all sorts of repercussions that can occur, so I would like some clarification on the minister's understanding of how that will work.

The CHAIR: Minister, before you start, I have had a message from one of the MPs in their office watching. Could you make sure that you are closer to the microphone when you are giving your answer? Thank you, minister.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry. It might be useful to make a general point here. In relation to international arrivals, it will be the norm that a charge will be levied. Exceptions will be rare. In relation to domestic travellers and South Australian residents, these decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis and will be quite rare.

In relation to international travellers, this government does not want people to, if you like, be caught mid-air by an unexpected charge. First and foremost, it is not our intention to apply a charge for international arrivals if they bought their ticket before the specified date—

The Hon. C. Bonaros: 13 July.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes, 13 July; very good. Likewise, once they do arrive, in relation to international arrivals, people should not be surprised. They have already bought the ticket, they have flown with that knowledge. I think it is one of the main reasons national cabinet wanted all of us to move together, so that there would not be unfortunate surprises when people do get back.

In relation to the fines enforcement aspect, I will add to my previous answer in two respects. First, most of the international arrivals coming to Adelaide come in on charter flights, and it is made clear to the operators of the charter flights that they should be providing information to travellers about the charge for the accommodation.

In relation to collection, it is our current expectation that the invoices will be managed by RevenueSA. I am not clear whether RevenueSA outstanding debts are pursued by the fines enforcement authority, but that is our current understanding.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Do you need to be an Australian citizen or resident to take advantage of a waiver under the proposal?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: You need to be an Australian citizen or resident to be able to be an international arrival at this time.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I understand this is part of the national cabinet agreement, and also understand that Queensland, New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Western Australia have already implemented their schemes. Queensland has a specific provision in its scheme that talks about people who are vulnerable. It allows them to apply for a waiver, and vulnerability will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

It may include things like people with a chronic illness, people who are not able to take care of themselves and protect themselves against harm or exploitation by reason of age, illness, trauma or disability, refugees, or for humanitarian reasons. There is a range of other issues, including domestic, family or sexual violence.

These are issues that have been listed in terms of those individuals who are particularly vulnerable. Does the minister consider we would have a very similar waiver for individuals in those categories as well?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It is my expectation that all the categories the honourable member indicated are good grounds to seek a waiver, or, for that matter, part payment or whatever it might be.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If someone stays in quarantine in a hotel, at some point they will receive an invoice. What is the time lapse between the stay in the hotel and when they will receive an invoice? More specifically, what are the payment terms for that invoice?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My understanding is that they would receive the invoice as they leave, and that the normal terms, subject to other arrangements made during their stay, would be for payment within 30 days.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Thirty?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes. A slight bit to add to the answer: so that our accommodation partner is not at risk, the expectation is that SA Health would pay the bill as the client leaves. SA Health would then invoice the client to try to recover the money that they have already provided to the accommodation provider.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I assume, based on that model then, if SA Health is unable to reclaim the amount and a waiver has not been granted, that will result in a debt which may have some enforcement actions becoming payable to the state government.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That is certainly the case and I certainly expect that there will be bad debts. Let's go back to the point I was making about domestic travellers and South Australian residents. I am glad the Treasurer is not in the room but I regard the fact that we have invested a lot of money in managing hotel isolation, and we are envisaging that we may well need to do a lot more going forward, to me that is an investment in public health.

One of the cautious elements of this program, particularly with domestic travellers and South Australian residents is that the last thing we want to do is discourage people from getting tested or isolating if they feel they are at risk of a hotel bill, so we are going to continue to invest in isolation and quarantine.

In that regard, to show the bona fides of this, this is not full tote odds. These charges, I am advised, do not even fully cover food and accommodation. Certainly, they do not cover food and accommodation if you have more than just a single traveller, and there are certainly many costs beyond. We are asking people, particularly international arrivals, 'Now that you have had a good few months to come home, we would like you to share the cost.'

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I acknowledge what the minister has just said. In relation to the current cost, my understanding is that they currently range between about $2,500 and $3,000 depending on which jurisdiction you are looking at: New South Wales is around the three, ours are at the higher end of the scale. A family of four, as I said during my second reading, would cost about $5,000. The Northern Territory, in particular, has reduced fees for low income earners so they have a threshold that applies. People earning over a certain amount pay one fee and people earning under pay another. Has thought been given to any such thresholds here?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My understanding is that our fees are almost identical, if not identical to New South Wales. We certainly could look at differential schedules if you like for hotel rates, but at this stage it is more likely that we will do part payments and waivers rather than a second set of rates. I suppose in that sense it gives us more flexibility.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I understand that. That question may have come about more as a consideration of no payment under a waiver as opposed to some payment albeit reduced so we get something back instead of nothing—a full waiver.

If I can just move on, can the minister confirm what are the repercussions in South Australia if somebody at the end of a hotel quarantine period refuses to undergo a COVID test? Has any consideration been given to the Northern Territory model, which requires them to serve a further 10 days at their own cost if they refuse to undergo a test at the end of their 14-day quarantine?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised the South Australian practice accords with the Northern Territory practice.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: So somebody here could refuse a test at the end of the 14 days? If they do refuse a test, will they be required to stay for a further 10 days and incur those costs?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that is the intention, but let's be clear: we have also indicated that they may well be subject to an individual order under the Public Health Act, and I think breach of an order under the emergency management acts is $20,000. I do not recall what the penalty would be, but they would be liable to an extended stay, is my advice, the advice I have been given, and they would also be liable to enforcement action under the relevant acts.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just—

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, if I could just make the point too that, considering the discussions in Victoria in particular, we have had about 1,600 people coming to South Australia under isolation or quarantine and we have not had a case of a refusal.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Just to clarify, residents and citizens are told that if they purchased their ticket before 12pm Australian Central Standard Time on 13 July 2020, these fees will not apply. Does that mean that if they booked in February, had their flight cancelled in March, as all the flights were cancelled, and are waiting to rebook, the waiver applies?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It is probably a good illustration of why it is good not to develop overly stringent policies and guidelines. I am advised that circumstances such as that would be good grounds for an application for a waiver.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: While they might be good grounds to, my question to the minister is would they get a waiver?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: This bill does not seek to specify the grounds for waivers, reductions, refunds, management plans or part payments.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will phrase it a different way. Could the minister describe if purchasing a ticket is defined as having booked a ticket that is then cancelled? For the sake of fullness, does it only apply to the ticket that they eventually arrive on?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not think the legislation itself uses the booking reference. Certainly, in public statements we have made it clear that for a booking pre-dating 13 July it is not intended that the fee apply. I certainly do not want to put myself in the situation where I am starting to make decisions that are appropriately made by officers with all the facts in front of them. All I can say is that they are the sorts of circumstances that one would expect that the decision-makers would properly consider.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: There were two other questions that I asked during the second reading, and they were in relation to the retrospective nature of the legislation. I understand that it is the government's intention that this should apply from 18 July, which is when the announcement was made—or is it the 13th? I do not know. Which one? I think it is the 18th. I have some concerns about the retrospective nature, so I would like to get some clarity. From which date is it that individuals are being told this will apply to them, and why the retrospective nature?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would make a couple of points: first of all, I would not describe it as retrospective because the announcement was made in relation to international travellers, I think on 13 July, which is the Monday. My recollection is, the announcement in relation to domestic arrivals and South Australian residents was made on Thursday 16 July and that it only applied to people who arrived from the 18th onwards and did not apply if somebody had the ticket purchased on the 13th.

I would call that very prospective. Now that the Treasurer is in the room, it is not dissimilar to when treasurers announce that a tax is going to apply and the legislation is still to come into the parliament, but everyone is on notice. That is exactly what we are doing here: we are asking parliament to endorse a decision of government. We have already let the public know that they will be liable for an invoice, but there are elements here to make sure that there is not a retrospective element to it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Finally, the other two questions that I put during my second reading were: I imagine that there would now be individuals in quarantine who would be subject to paying fees and, if so, can we confirm that? Is there any anticipated influx that the government is aware of of individuals due to arrive at any point in time shortly that this will also apply to?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If you don't mind I might put aside individual travellers because there are the odd ones, but in relation to groups I am advised that there was a flight that arrived on Tuesday of about 50 people and that they are the first international arrivals who will be subject to this charge, and that there is a second group of 60 people who are expected to arrive this evening. Also, in the next three weeks or so we are expecting around 600 arrivals.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This is my final question, which I did ask in the phone briefing that I had as well. Will the hotel accommodation have access to fresh air?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The two accommodation facilities that we particularly use are the Pullman and the Playford. One of the reasons why we use those is because they do have balconies. In terms of the placement of clients within the facility, if we had any awareness of a particular vulnerability such as a mental health issue that would mean that a balcony room would be particularly appropriate, then we would certainly respond to that.

I also make the point that I am very proud of the fact that this jurisdiction has led the nation in being alert to the mental health risks of isolation and detention. I would like to pay tribute not only to the high-quality nursing team that has been providing medical and nursing support to people in quarantine but also to the Chief Psychiatrist, John Brayley, and, to be frank, a network of mental health organisations, particularly Lifeline, which makes inreach telephone calls to people during their time in hotel isolation and through the work with the nursing and medical teams providing support to residents.

We are very aware of our duty of care to these people. First of all, they are humans and, secondly, they are Australian citizens and permanent residents coming home. We want their return to be as less traumatic return as possible. I think the work of Dr Brayley and Lifeline has actually highlighted perhaps something that we were not aware of when we embarked on this journey.

A lot of these people have come back from very traumatic situations. A significant number of people have come back from India. Before returning to Australia and facing the prospect of two weeks in isolation or quarantine, they had already gone through a hard lockdown in India which I think lasted significantly longer than that. The mental health assessments and the support being provided by the virtual support network highlighted that there were significant mental health issues or mental stress being experienced by our clients.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 6) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (17:17): 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