HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-10-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 September 2024.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (15:34): I rise to speak in support of this bill as the lead speaker for the opposition in this chamber. I note, with praise, that this bill comes two years after the introduction of the Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) Bill 2022, as initiated by our legislative colleague the Hon. Frank Pangallo. When it first received royal assent on 8 December 2022, it made South Australia the first jurisdiction in the country to mandate the public installation of AEDs. I also note the progress that has been made, and the ongoing reform that has been underway, since that original bill.

The Liberal opposition championed the intent of the bill, and has continuously worked to improve the drafting, to help ensure the best piece of legislation is enacted for South Australians. Our party had a number of concerns and questions in relation to the practical operation of the original legislation at the time, and we did attempt to move amendments to address these concerns, but without success. With this amendment bill before us we see several of those changes we suggested implemented. I note that some of the other changes to this act are:

the removal of the compulsory requirement for the minister to establish a training scheme under the act;

the removal of vehicles from the requirement to register;

the alignment of requirements for software applications under section 13 with a current application, which integrates with the South Australian Ambulance Service dispatch system;

the inclusion of multiple powers to make regulations to support the operationalisation of the act;

a definition of an 'owner' to separate the legislative requirements for a building owner versus a tenant; and

the inclusion of a delegation power to allow the minister to assign those duties and responsibilities to an authorised officer.

The act is due to come into operation on 1 January 2025 for government agencies, and rolls out 12 months post 1 January 2026 for other specified buildings, facilities and vehicles. This amendment bill is a demonstration that the initial legislation passed with a number of operational oversights from the original government legislation.

I want to take this opportunity to echo the concerns of the South Australian Business Chamber who, like us, continue to be supportive of the intent of the bill, but have asked the government to ensure that business representation be considered thoughtfully, such as being included on the across-government AED steering committee.

I foreshadow that I will have an amendment that has been written in consultation with the Local Government Association. My amendment to this bill acknowledges that there will be an enormous cost to South Australian councils, given the high number of buildings and facilities under their scope. The cost of implementing this legislation will in all likelihood be passed on to ratepayers. My amendment preserves the original intent of the bill whilst making the application sensible and manageable for councils, and I look forward to addressing the amendment in more detail during the committee stage.

While the government has assured us that the legislation was robust, it has now had time to move a number of amendments to fairly implement the legislation. The opposition believes the original legislation was rushed, with little consideration on how it was to operate in a practical sense within the community. Commonsense practical questions were asked by the opposition during committee toward the government about the introduction of the initial amendment bill. These included:

that maximum penalties needed reform;

that AEDs in vehicles would need to operate and report differently from those mounted within buildings;

recognising that there were concerns around testing protocols;

awareness campaign requirements; and

responsibility allocations to authorised officers.

Here we are with many of the opposition's questions and original amendments now being acknowledged. I remind the government that when legislation of this type comes through the Legislative Council, the opposition and the crossbench take very seriously what is put before us. Our resources are limited compared to the government, and it should not be that the majority of our collective work time is spent fixing the mistakes of rushed legislation.

Again, I want to reiterate that we support the bill in its amended form. Our approach to amendment bills and to the committee process is sincere and genuine, and it is satisfying that questions asked two years ago have now come to fruition through the government's amendment bill. With that I conclude my remarks at this stage but look forward to speaking to my amendment in the committee stage.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:39): I rise to support this bill, which has returned into this place in an amended form which clarifies various elements to make for a smoother transition. This is the first legislation of its kind in Australia and I think one of the few in the world. Of course, things that do need to be ironed out, have been, and I commend the government and the health minister for the work that they have done on this since it was first put through parliament in 2022. I am proud that South Australia is leading the nation and I hope that other states will now follow our lead.

It is quite timely. Tomorrow is World Restart a Heart Day and this month is known as Shocktober, and that is a reference to the use of defibrillators. Cardiac arrest kills around 2,045 South Australians every year and the Council of Ambulance Authorities informs me that more than 30,000 people suffer cardiac arrest in Australia each year. Tragically, less than 10 per cent or so of those struck down manage to survive, and I am one of those fortunate 10 per cent.

Why do we accept these deaths? Possibly because we do not think there is anything we can do about them. Well, now we can with the installation of AEDs across our community and in public and privately owned buildings with the passage of this bill, instead of only relying on the good corporate citizens who are already doing it. This will ensure the automated external defibrillator, the AED as it is commonly known, is widely accessible. AEDs are proven to save lives. This law will save lives because AEDs are proven.

Many companies are already embarking on installation projects. I now see them at airports, in shopping centres, in office places, sporting clubs, in hotels. People and service organisations like Rotary have become quite conscious of having them available. Coles have told me that one life is saved every day somewhere in Australia in one of their stores through AEDs. That is extraordinary and gratifying.

Local government is also participating. The City of Tea Tree Gully has embarked on a program to roll out dozens of AEDs in their communities. I have also mentioned in this place previously the actions of the Kangaroo Island community, which particularly inspired me to persist with this legislation after my bill was initially rejected by the previous Marshall Liberal government.

An installation program initiated by Dr Tim Leeuwenburg has resulted in around 50 AEDs dotted around the island, which only has one ambulance and one hospital, and 25 per cent of the island's population now know how to perform CPR. They have saved lives there. We can and will have more heart-safe communities like this to achieve these positive health outcomes.

The act takes effect from January 2025. Government buildings and local government properties have two years to install AEDs, and in the non-government sector, three years. There is a list of designated buildings and emergency vehicles and public transport. Hopefully they will also go into schools. The act also has a provision for the devices to be registered and used in conjunction with the use of an app, the GoodSAM app, to identify their locations and alert first responders with experience in the use of AEDs and CPR and who are registered with 000. SA Ambulance informed me that they are pleased with the results of a trial they have been conducting.

I have had many pose questions to me about liability of citizens who come to the aid of a person who has had a cardiac arrest or heart attack. There is no legal impediment to using AED and the Civil Liability Act 1936 good Samaritan clause safeguards individuals who help in a life-threatening emergency.

AEDs are valuable pieces of equipment. There are financial penalties for noncompliance and for property damage and theft. I am delighted to see there are several protective and security innovations in this area already. The appropriate location, security, access, and maintenance of AEDs are the other main areas which will govern the availability and rollout.

Can they be safely and securely situated outside of buildings? The answer is yes. Again, this is where the combination of the GoodSAM app and mandatory registration of devices can assist in providing a user with the information or a code to unlock the box containing the device once they call 000.

I also became aware of the Rotaid device, a specially designed container which is clearly marked and illuminated. It is not only safely secured but provides real-time information about the device, including alerts on battery life and the AED pads. While the addition of Rotaid may add cost to the purchase price of the device, what it does do is provide a level of insurance to the owner and the user that the device is there and will work.

There are several models of AED out on the market. They range in price from around $1,500-$2,000 to as low as about $400 for single-use devices like the Australian-made and designed CellAED, which I keep in my car. They use AI and tell the user what to do. It is very simple. CPR is crucial and needs to be also used in the application of a defibrillator. We need more people in our community to be trained in CPR. It is not a difficult or even time-consuming exercise.

The Legislative Council endorsed my motion calling on the Malinauskas government, and I hope the transport and health ministers seize upon this to make training in CPR mandatory in the process of people getting their driver's licence. This is already happening in Europe through the acclaimed 'Learn to Drive. Learn CPR.' project in collaboration with the European Resuscitation Council and the European Driving Schools Association, requiring citizens to undergo CPR courses to qualify for their licence.

This policy is driving tens of thousands of skilled life-saving drivers on their roads and into their own communities. Minister Koutsantonis has already indicated he thinks this is a good idea. I note there is a bill before us that will bring needed reform to the driving instructors industry. First aid training can easily be incorporated in a module as part of the process without much additional cost.

I cannot express my thanks enough for the support I have received from Steve Yeo at St John Ambulance in South Australia—the seed to this legislation was planted in a discussion we had in my office five years ago—and from the original yellow Wiggle, Greg Page, with his Heart of the Nation campaign to roll out AEDs. Also, many thanks for the encouragement, support and work done by our current health minister, the Hon. Chris Picton, to make this legislation happen.

My parliamentary colleague and member for Stuart, Geoff Brock, and I have joined the Heart Foundation's AED awareness campaign Shockingly Simple. Shockingly Simple will run across a four-week period, which started yesterday, Monday 14 October, until Sunday 10 November in South Australia, leveraging the timing of both Shocktober and Restart a Heart Day.

While the act provides greater accessibility to AEDs, the Heart Foundation recognises that public awareness and confidence need improvement. In response to this, the Heart Foundation has launched the month-long campaign to increase awareness and education on AEDs across South Australia in the lead-up to the act taking effect. If successful, this campaign could serve as a pilot for a potential national rollout. I urge members in this place to take part in the campaign and raise awareness.

With the Council of Ambulance Australia, South Australian Ambulance Service, St John Ambulance, and Surf Life Saving South Australia, the Heart Foundation is to host a Restart a Heart Day community activation event this Wednesday, October 16, in Rundle Mall running from 9am to 2pm. In closing, I will not be supporting the amendment put forward by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti. Thank you.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:48): I rise to speak in favour of the Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024 on behalf of the Greens. The Greens supported the automated external defibrillators public access bill twice: firstly in 2020 when the Hon. Frank Pangallo first introduced a private member's bill, which was opposed by the former Marshall government, and again when this bill came into law in 2022 with the support of the Malinauskas Labor government.

Again, we support this bill. We consider that it will aid in the implementation and rollout of defibrillators across the state in line with the intent of the original bill that was brought forward by the Hon. Frank Pangallo. I do want to acknowledge the work of the Hon. Frank Pangallo in this regard. The honourable member has been a long-term advocate in this space and I think really led the way on this. It is an exciting thing to see South Australia become the first state in the country to actually take action on this, so I commend the Hon. Mr Frank Pangallo for his leadership and of course I acknowledge the work of the minister, the Hon. Chris Picton, as well.

We know that defibrillators save lives when they are accessible. They are simple, they are easy to use and they are highly effective. The implementation of defibrillators in public access spaces is the result of advocacy from the Heart Foundation and the Ambulance Employees Association and a range of others as well. Indeed, I remember having a look at this debate years ago when I was on the Adelaide City Council when my then colleague Councillor Philip Martin moved for the city council to install some defibrillators, and I know that that has been a success at a council level.

The changes in this bill are sensible to ensure that these devices are publicly accessible without creating unnecessary burdens. They draw a distinction between the owner and the tenant of the building and this ensures that there will be greater clarity around the responsibility for maintaining these devices. There are also changes being made to the floor area definitions that will make it easier for organisations to provide access to defibrillators.

The bill also removes the annual testing requirement. I think that is an important change because we understand that annual testing has been found to diminish the life cycle of the product, which obviously was not what was intended. I note that the opposition have indicated that they will be moving amendments to this bill in response to the concerns that have been raised by the local government sector. I had the opportunity to meet with the Local Government Association yesterday to discuss their request for a new statutory immunity to protect councils from civil lawsuits that may arise where a defibrillator might have been stolen or vandalised and then a person has a heart attack and sues for damages.

In my second reading speech in relation to the Hon. Frank Pangallo's bill back in 2022, I highlighted the problem potentially being faced by councils with respect to batteries being stolen from these devices, particularly in rural areas. While I understand the intent of the opposition's amendments, and I do respect the advocacy work of the local government sector, I am concerned that these amendments could be seen as a watering down of the honourable member's bill and could potentially move us away from building owners taking responsibility for defibrillators, which I understand could rob the bill of its veracity, and that is of concern for me.

I also note that carve-outs are not being given to smaller organisations, such as sporting clubs or not-for-profit organisations, that will also have responsibility for the installation and maintenance of these devices. I also understand from some advice that has been provided to my office from the government that some of the legal concerns that have been flagged are potentially already addressed. I think the government will no doubt talk to that when they reflect on the opposition's amendments. I will listen closely to the debate but at this stage it is not the Greens' intention to support the Liberal amendments.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (15:53): I rise to make remarks regarding the government's amendment bill, which will make automated external defibrillators mandatory in SA public buildings. Naturally, we support the introduction of such life-saving measures aimed at protecting community members by having heart-starting equipment on hand when it is most needed.

We acknowledge that the government's systematic plan to have broad public access to AEDs make sense. However, we have consulted with the Property Council about this bill and that group have raised concerns with us, chiefly that under this amendment responsibility for installation and upkeep of AED units would rest with the landlord rather than the tenants. This bill in fact places all the onus on landlords, from registering AED units to installing them to maintaining them on a regular basis. The Property Council advises that this runs contrary to normal convention, in that tenants are typically responsible for fire extinguishers and other health and safety equipment on their premises. Tenants expect to be responsible for this and consider it part of their duties.

In addition, we are advised that any law change that would make landlords entirely responsible for AEDs could potentially create legal issues in the event that a defibrillator unit failed to operate due to a lack of maintenance and somebody died as a result, remembering that in South Australia AEDs must be maintained and tested at least once every 12 months to ensure that they remain in working order.

Concerns have been raised about instilling full responsibility on tenants to maintain AEDs but, as I have explained, this is the norm. Under the provisions of this amendment, an AED would need to be installed in buildings or facilities for every 1,200 square metres of floor area. So to allay the fears for those who lack trust in tenants I point out that we are not talking about—these are sizeable buildings and typically professional tenants we are talking about.

After speaking to the Property Council we feel the government should contemplate and address these concerns and, if not, we consider returning to the chamber with amendments of this nature. I will put on the record that I will be supporting the Liberal amendments that have been put forward, after consultation with the local government sector.

The Hon. R.B. MARTIN (15:55): When I was about 10 years old and a student at Largs North Primary School, I was asked to write an essay about two people that I admired. The two people that I chose were cricketer Simon O'Donnell and businessman Kerry Packer. To 10-year-old Reggie they were heroes in part because when I contemplated my future goals, my young mind reckoned that it would be pretty nice to play cricket for Australia and it would probably be pretty nice to have a lot of money, so I chose those two people.

I also admired Simon O'Donnell for his resilience in the face of significant health challenges and his comeback to the Australian team after suffering from cancer, and I admired Kerry Packer in part for his largesse with the Packer Whackers. Kerry Packer was the reason I first became aware of the existence of defibrillators. Members of a certain vintage will recall that, after suffering a heart attack and being saved by one of the few ambulances in the state that was fitted with a defibrillator—which was at the time a pretty rare bit of gear—Mr Packer went halves with the New South Wales government to get one fitted into every ambulance in the state.

Having a defibrillator money level of wealth, and on top of that an evident inclination towards the expenditure of that wealth for the public good, only intensified Mr Packer's mystique in young Reggie's mind. In hindsight, the greatest thing that I probably took away from my period of admiration was a greatly justified respect for the defibrillator as a crucial life-saving medical device. The technology has, of course, evolved significantly since then and become significantly cheaper and more accessible, and we are all the better for this evolution.

There is plenty of evidence that widespread access to AEDs can significantly help in preventing deaths by cardiac arrest. According to the Heart Foundation, every minute without defibrillation restarting the heart reduces an individual's chance of surviving by 10 per cent. Members would recall the Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) Act 2022, a national first piece of legislation, as being brought to this place by the Hon. Frank Pangallo.

The government was pleased to support that legislation which makes life-saving AEDs mandatory in public buildings, including schools, universities, libraries, sporting facilities, local council offices, theatres and swimming pools, to help save the lives of South Australians from cardiac arrest. We know that many organisations and businesses have already chosen to install AEDs. The South Australian government has installed AEDs in some of the places this legislation mandates, including in CFS, MFS and SES vehicles.

We have also commenced a grant program to support community and sporting organisations to purchase AEDs with the first round of the South Australian AED grants program, opening in May this year, offering $1,000 grants to not-for-profit community, cultural and sporting organisations, to assist with the cost of purchasing a defibrillator to install in their building or facility. The first round of the AED grants program provided over 200 grants to over 160 organisations across South Australia. The AED grants program is available to assist eligible groups and organisations to have AEDs installed by 1 January 2026, in line with the legislation's requirements.

The bill before us is a result of the work of the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the government on this important initiative to increase the availability of AEDs within the South Australian community, and I thank the honourable member for his advocacy.

The bill proposes to amend the act for the purpose of removing ambiguities around the applicability, scope and requirements of the act, which will enable consistent interpretation and application. Including a definition for 'owner' in the act will ensure a clear distinction between the obligations imposed by the act on a building owner versus a tenant.

Additionally, the proposed definitions seek to clarify what is regarded as a building or facility for the purposes of the act. This aims to see smaller businesses being carved out from the requirements to comply with the act, noting the act was not intended to capture small businesses and cafes. A new provision is proposed for the exclusion of certain buildings and facilities from the requirements of the act for reasons including, but not limited to:

instances where there is a superior response mechanism in place and trained medical staff are present;

instances in which the presence of an AED presents safety concerns; and

instances where a building or facility is entirely not accessible to the public and the mandated presence of AEDs would not align with the intent of the act.

A new provision is proposed to enable exemptions to be made on a case-by-case basis to the requirements of the act. The bill also proposes to allow broader regulation-making powers to support effective operation of the act. A range of other amendments were thoroughly described by the Minister for Health and Wellbeing in the other place and by the Attorney-General's contribution in this place.

I commend those who provided feedback to the public consultation on this bill that was undertaken earlier this year. It is the government's view that this bill upholds the intent of the act whilst amendments are made to ensure that it can be maximally effective in operation. I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:01): I thank honourable members for their contributions on this important bill. In particular, I thank the Hon. Frank Pangallo for his contribution. He is largely the architect of this scheme and I commend the work the Hon. Frank Pangallo has done with my colleague the Minister for Health to see this come to fruition. I will at the second reading stage indicate that we will not support the opposition's amendments, and I look forward to the passage of this bill swiftly this afternoon.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister inform the chamber whether the Civil Liability Act protects council staff who may come to the aid of a member of the public requiring an AED and, if not, will councils be exposed to extra risk and cost as a result of the acts of their staff?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might ask for a clarification: is the question whether the passage of this bill imposes new civil liability provisions on people's duty of care?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: That is correct.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the passage of this bill will not disturb anything about how a duty of care is owed in the operation of normal law.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: In regard to the obligations to inspect and maintain AEDs, is the minister aware that some manufacturers suggest inspection and testing of AEDs every three months?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It will be up to someone who purchases this to maintain it, as I am advised, in accordance with the manufacturer's instruction. I am advised that there are different levels, depending on which unit someone might buy, in relation to what may be required for maintenance. Maintenance is a very, very broad term, and some maintenance schedules, as I am advised, might be as simple as visual inspection and making sure the lights are on, as they ought to be.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: But is the minister aware that some manufacturers do suggest inspection of that, ensuring that the lights are on, so to speak, every three months?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not aware of the exact maintenance regimes of a range of different manufacturers. As I say, the maintenance may be as simple as looking to make sure the correct lights are on for some maintenance regimes, particularly those of a short time, is my advice.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister appreciate that in some circumstances in regard to some manufacturer's instructions the maintenance may actually be more onerous in some cases that are less than the 12-month period?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It will be up to those who purchase it to make the decisions based on a whole range of considerations. I am sure if someone is concerned about what is required in the manufacturer's instructions—in the range of maintenance—that may factor into the decision about which particular device they purchase.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister indicate to the chamber whether AEDs that have a longer period between maintenance are generally more costly?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is far outside my area of expertise, but as I say it will be up to individuals, organisations, companies who buy these devices to weigh up which device they buy based on a whole range of factors, I am assuming including cost and their research into their reliability. It might be that the maintenance schedules are a factor that weighs in on what product they actually choose.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I did not make a contribution at the second reading stage, but I just thought, given the discussions that have transpired I would indicate that, given some of the concerns that have been raised, I have, in the time available, of course, engaged with the minister in what I would call constructive discussions on some of the issues that have been highlighted today, including issues that have been highlighted by other honourable members.

I note that there are the concerns of the LGA. I also note that there are the concerns that have been raised with members with very late notice in the scheme of things by the Property Council and also, of course, the competing views with respect to those by other stakeholders engaged in these discussions.

I just thought it was worthwhile placing on the record that the minister has certainly indicated his willingness to work with the Property Council with respect to the concerns that they have, noting of course that there are competing interests with those as well, when it comes to operationalising the legislation during the regulation-drafting process. I note, also, the bill will be the subject of consultation after it passes. I think it is important, just in terms of how we progress, to underscore the undertaking by the minister to consult during that regulation-making phase on the issues that have been canvassed by members today.

Of course, when it comes to some of the operational issues that the LGA has also indicated, it would make sense to me that they would also be the subject of those further consultations with the government during that regulation-making phase in terms of the operational aspects of this legislation once it passes and of course noting again also the consultation phase that will follow the passage of this legislation. As such, I will not be supporting the proposed amendments that have been brought by the opposition today.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 14 passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 10, after line 27—After inserted section 16D insert:

16E—Liability of councils

(1) A council that is an owner of a building or facility, or a relevant authority for a vehicle, in which an Automated External Defibrillator is required to be installed in accordance with this Act is not liable in tort for a failure to—

(a) inspect, maintain or repair the Automated External Defibrillator; or

(b) provide the Minister with the information required for the register under section 12(2), or notify the Minister of any changes to that information; or

(c) take other action to avoid or reduce the risk of harm that results from a failure referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).

(2) However, if a council—

(a) has been notified in writing of the destruction of, or any damage to, an Automated External Defibrillator installed in a building, facility or vehicle in respect of which the council is the owner or relevant authority (as the case may be), or any changes to the accessibility of such an Automated External Defibrillator; and

(b) has failed to take reasonable action in response to the notification (including notifying the Minister of a change to information required for the register within the timeframe specified in section 12(4)(b)),

the council may be liable for any damage or harm that would have been averted had the council taken reasonable action in response to the notification.

This amendment has been drafted in consultation with the Local Government Association and they have approached the opposition, as indeed they have approached the government and the crossbench, with significant concerns about certain aspects of the bill, in particular how the bill will relate to the enormous number of buildings and facilities that local councils own and the impact that this legislation would have on South Australian councils more broadly. In particular, the concern is around civil liability. It my understanding—I have, indeed, seen the legal advice provided by the LGA—that their lawyers have significant concern around councils remaining exposed in relation to civil liability in this amendment bill.

At present, councils do not bear legal responsibility for the health outcomes of the general public and in this current bill it is our understanding that councils will continue to be exposed in relation to those civil liability claims, notwithstanding, obviously, the comments from the Attorney-General previously. For instance, if they fail to properly inspect and maintain the AEDs in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements and then if a member of the public dies or suffers a hypoxic brain injury because an AED was not functioning properly or was not accessible for some reason because perhaps it has been stolen or removed by vandals that the council could bear legal responsibility for that.

Furthermore, given that there is an obligation to inform the minister of the placement of an AED within two weeks in a manner and form determined by the minister, it is entirely likely that at some point in the future a council may fail to communicate this information given the large number of potential AEDs that councils will ultimately be responsible for again opening up the risk for civil liability claims.

In addition, it is our understanding that the legislative scheme does not provide councils with any compensation or any mechanism to recover the significant resources required to comply with their new statutory obligations and, given the large number of buildings and facilities owned by councils, it is entirely reasonable I think to conclude that the impact of this AED legislation will impose a significant cost to South Australian councils that is likely to be passed on to ratepayers by way of increased council rates.

It is pertinent to note that the Local Government Act 1999 already provides councils with a wide range of statutory immunities including in relation to stormwater, tree maintenance, exercise of powers by council members and council employees individually and breaches of duties to provide certain information, to name just a few of those.

My amendment proposes that councils be afforded a statutory immunity that covers changes to accessibility or failures to notify the minister of the installation of an AED within the timeframe except when the council has been specifically notified in writing of an issue with a defibrillator or an AED and has failed to take reasonable action in response to that notification. Obviously, if the council has been made aware of an issue, it should take all reasonable steps to address that issue, but this amendment seeks to cover the council in situations where, for example, there is vandalism or issues with maintenance that may occur without the knowledge of the council.

Finally, in response to the Hon. Robert Simms' comments that this amendment may water down this bill, I would suggest that councils still have a legal liability to install and maintain AEDs, and councils will still be exposed to the penalties in the act if they fail to do so. My amendment just limits the further civil liability for health outcomes for members of the public, which currently does not exist at all.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will provide a response from the government. As I said in my second reading sum-up, the government will not be supporting this amendment. Providing statutory immunity would, in our view, undermine the intent of the act, which requires building owners to install, register and maintain AEDs. Civil liability does not attach to an owner when there is evidence to show that reasonable steps were taken to comply with the legislation.

There was a concern raised during the passage of the original bill by the original bill's author, the Hon. Frank Pangallo, that reducing penalties would disincentivise people from taking them up. The significant penalties embedded in this act are also to ensure deterrence for noncompliance. It should be noted that final changes to the amendment bill as a result of consultation has resulted in the inclusion of an authorised officer and expiation fees to enable noncompliance to be addressed outside a judicial system.

Civil liability does not attach to an owner when there is evidence to show that reasonable steps were taken to comply with the legislation. No other organisation or agency has been or will be afforded a statutory immunity such as is suggested in this amendment. This includes private building owners and the South Australian government.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 12

Majority 5

AYES

Centofanti, N.J. (teller) Game, S.L. Girolamo, H.M.
Henderson, L.A. Hood, B.R. Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S.

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. El Dannawi, M.
Franks, T.A. Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K.
Maher, K.J. (teller) Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T.
Pangallo, F. Simms, R.A. Wortley, R.P.

PAIRS

Lensink, J.M.A. Scriven, C.M.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clauses (16 and 17) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:22): 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