HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-11-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Health Care (Acquisition of Property) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 November 2023.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (15:38): I rise to speak on the Health Care (Acquisition of Property) Amendment Bill 2020 and indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition. I also indicate that we will be supporting the bill. However, we do have an amendment to the bill which we will be seeking support for, and I will explain the amendment in due course.

Currently, compulsory acquisition under section 40 of the Health Care Act is limited to being for the purposes of an incorporated hospital—that is, public hospitals and other services managed by a local health network. The government has advised that the amendment is required to facilitate the compulsory acquisition of land for the purpose of building ambulance service facilities. The opposition supports compulsory acquisition powers being used to support ambulance services in a similar way to other public health services.

However, the bill is much broader than that. It proposes to broaden the entities for which land can be compulsorily acquired to include all health services as defined by the Health Care Act. A health service is defined under the Health Care Act as:

(a) a service associated with:

(i) the promotion of health and well-being; or

(ii) the prevention of disease, illness or injury; or

(iii) intervention to address or manage disease, illness or injury; or

(iv) the management of treatment of disease, illness or injury; or

(v) rehabilitation or on-going care for persons who have suffered a disease, illness or injury; or

(b) a paramedical or ambulance service; or

(c) a residential aged care service; or

(ca) a research, pathology or diagnostic service associated with veterinary science; or

(d) a service brought within the ambit of this definition by the regulations,

but does not include a service excluded from the ambit of this definition by the regulations.

Members will note that the definition of health service is extremely broad and it does include specific services such as the paramedical or ambulance service, a residential aged-care service or a research, pathology or diagnostic service associated with veterinary science. In addition, though, the general elements would encompass a wide range of services, such as:

a gymnasium, a sports facility, a swimming pool or a walking trail may be for promotion of health and wellbeing;

a pharmacy may be to address or manage disease, illness or injury;

a private hospital, medical or dental practice may be for the management of treatment of disease, illness or injury; and

a disability facility may be for the rehabilitation or ongoing care for persons who have suffered a disease, illness or injury.

In addition, the service could be a public service, a private service or a non-government service. Given this wide scope that this amendment bill will provide to the government to compulsorily acquire private land, the opposition asked the minister during its briefing on the bill for what other purposes the government considers it requires such a broad amendment. The minister was unable to provide any specific examples of health services the government is considering at this time but the bill will allow the government to consider other health services down the track.

This is simply not acceptable. The opposition in the House of Assembly supported expeditious consideration of the bill on the understanding that there is no logical reason why the South Australian Ambulance Service should not be able to access compulsory acquisition on a similar basis to other public health services. However, there is no urgency in undefined possible future uses of the compulsory acquisition power.

If there is a justification for the broader use of the compulsory acquisition power, let that proposal be tested through proper community consultation. The government should provide more detail of the possible future use. Stakeholders and the community need to be able to put forward their perspective. With the benefits of stakeholder and community input, this parliament can then do its job to consider the merits of a broader bill.

This government has demonstrated that it will suspend standing orders according to its own political agenda to push through legislation with little or no consultation. If we are to empower the government with the ability to seize and acquire private land, the power should be well defined and limited to a clear purpose.

The opposition seeks to amend this bill to only expand the compulsory acquisition power to the South Australian Ambulance Service, otherwise known as SAAS, to meet the current need asserted by the government. We would be open to considering further amendments when stakeholders and the community are properly consulted by the government and when the bill can be properly considered by the parliament in an orderly fashion.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:43): I rise to speak on behalf of the Greens on the Health Care (Acquisition of Property) Amendment Bill. Under current legislation the government can acquire land for public hospitals, but this bill expands the potential for those acquisition powers to extend to health services in general, especially for new ambulance services.

In the last few years, South Australia has been dealing with a ramping crisis, one that was created by both of the two major parties. We have continually heard stories of people waiting too long for ambulances. We have also heard of people being too scared to call an ambulance for fear of how long it will take. This is simply not good enough in a state like South Australia that has the resources that we have.

We do welcome the government's commitment to build new ambulance stations and so we are supportive of the general principle of this bill. We understand that there is a need to co-locate health services to make it easier for people to access multiple services. We also understand that ambulance services have very specific needs and that these need to be taken into account when selecting new locations.

Minister Picton, I understand, has advised the other place that the SA Ambulance Service needs to be located close to main roadways so as to avoid bottlenecks and to ensure best possible response times. For these reasons, we can see situations where compulsory acquisitions may be required. We have been advised that the usual planning and heritage processes will continue to apply to any properties already compulsorily acquired under this provision. Given the recent example of the use of Parklands for health services, assurances that heritage and planning laws will still apply are very important.

I am aware of the amendments that the opposition has filed. We will certainly consider the debate during the committee stage of the bill, but I flag that the Greens are disinclined to support those simply on the basis that this may narrow the field. We are concerned that this may prevent the potential for acquisitions for mental health services, and we recognise that that is an important issue that requires attention from government. We will certainly engage in the committee stage of the bill and I will be asking some questions of the government in that regard.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:46): I rise to speak on behalf of SA-Best on this bill, the Health Care (Acquisition of Property) Amendment Bill 2022. The existing powers, as we have heard, for the acquisition of incorporated hospitals are prescribed in the Health Care Act. The bill that we have before us seeks to broaden the justification for a compulsory acquisition to the provision of health services. It is a very minor change insofar as it effectively changes only a couple of words: 'incorporated hospitals' to 'health services', or words to that effect.

Health services, under the government's bill, can be associated with an array of things. They might be for an ambulance service or a residential aged-care facility. They might be linked with the promotion of health and wellbeing, prevention or rehabilitation related. It could even be for veterinary services purposes or for services prescribed via regulations, which currently includes the provision of linen and laundry services to hospitals or other healthcare providers. I will just pause there and note that I will ask a specific question about that particular regulation.

I want to note the amendment filed today by the opposition, which only seeks to limit the extended scope to SAAS (South Australian Ambulance Service). Oddly, it also seeks to strike out what I consider to be a very important element of the government's bill, namely, the reasonable test, which is actually intended to ensure that the minister consider that the acquisition is reasonably necessary for the purposes of the provision of health services. That is, in my view, a very important element of this proposal.

The insertion of that reasonable test is a welcome addition and I have to say I am a bit bewildered by the fact that we are trying to strike that out, even if this is only limited to SAAS in the opposition's amendment. I have to say, with all due respect, I have heard the arguments from the opposition, but we all know that the healthcare landscape is evolving past the four walls of a hospital, ambulance ramping and ambulance stations. It is becoming more community based. I accept that advice from the government; it is something that we all know.

Community-based health care reduces barriers, improves patient health and promotes preventative care and, at the end of the day, it costs far less. It is akin to the ambulance at the bottom of a cliff analogy: why put the ambulance at the bottom of a cliff to help a person after they are injured, after they have fallen, after they are in trouble, when the person could be prevented from falling in the first instance?

We do not want ambulance and hospitals to be the only goal. Frankly, I do not care if we are going to build an ambulance station or a mental health facility using these provisions, but I would say, for everyone's sake, we need to be building something. We need to be building as much as we can and funding those facilities appropriately to help ease the pressures on the health crisis that continues to plague our communities. If this bill is going to make that an easier process, then that is something we fully endorse.

I understand there is talk of a new commonwealth-funded mental health facility at Mount Barker. That is something that I raised during my briefings with the government. We absolutely support and endorse that. If that requires an acquisition of land in order to suit the needs of that mental health care facility, then that is something that we support. I think, importantly, anything that is going to help take pressure off the acute care system is a welcome development. Frankly, I think we need more of them, so you will not be hearing any arguments from us about that.

I would like to address a very important aspect of this bill, and that is that the process for a compulsory acquisition, should the reasonably necessary test be satisfied, as we know, remains tethered to the Land Acquisition Act. We have the head power in the Health Care Act, which enables land to be identified for the use of health-related services, but then obviously there is a process under the Land Acquisition Act that remains tethered to that head power that must be complied with. We are not watering down those processes or bypassing them by supporting the government's bill.

Frankly, it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that the provisions, given the reasonable test, would allow scenarios like those we have heard thrown around—for instance, 'Well, let's go and build a private sports facility in Glenelg because it's arguably for the promotion of health and wellbeing.' I would hasten to say that that would not meet the test that is in the government's bill in terms of reasonable and therefore would not be subject to the land acquisition processes that we have outlined.

In relation to those processes, it is very important to note for the record that the inherent protections of the Land Acquisition Act—compensation, objections, appeal rights—all remain. This bill does nothing to water those down. It does nothing to bypass them. It cannot do anything to bypass them, and it does nothing to undermine them. If we identify a piece of land that for some reason is more suitable than anything else available and requires acquisition, then all those processes will have to be undergone. If somebody is entitled to compensation, then they will have all those processes available to them in terms of compensation, objections and appeal rights.

We are advised that the bill is consistent with what exists in other states and territories, including the ACT and the NT, which simply require a public purpose, so they are much broader even than what we are contemplating today. I think it is Queensland that specifically provides for boarding houses, refuges and facilities for people with disability, social disadvantage or mental illness. That is also one of the broader definitions that applies.

There is nothing in this bill that is inconsistent with what other states and territories do. If anything, the amendment that we are considering here today seems to be long overdue. It looks like we have fallen behind. We are lagging behind the other jurisdictions in terms of making sure that, where land is compulsorily acquired, it is not just for the purposes of building a hospital.

I think there is much to be said about setting us up for the modern era of health care, where hospitals and ambulances are viewed as the last resort, if we are going to do anything to overcome the health crisis, as I have said, that has plagued us now for years and is likely to continue plaguing us for many more years.

With respect, I am not convinced of the opposition's position. I am not convinced that even if it were just limited to SAAS then you should not have the reasonable test. I am concerned at how that undermines the bill and the very important processes and standards that would otherwise apply. With those words, I indicate that I will ask some questions of the Attorney during the debate. We on this side of the bench look forward to the swift passage of this bill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:55): I thank members for their contributions. I know there will be a few questions and I look forward to answering them at clause 1 and at other stages during the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I was just wanting to address an apparent misapprehension in some of the contributions to this debate. The Health Care Act uses a peculiar term, 'incorporated hospital', to refer to what are more commonly known as local health networks. I ask the minister: is it the case that incorporated hospitals deliver mental health services, both inpatient services and community-based services, and there is nothing in this act that would increase the capacity for incorporated hospitals, local health networks, to deliver mental health services, whether in inpatient facilities or in the community?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We are trying to clarify. Can I ask the honourable member to repeat the question?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will summarise it. The key point is that there seems to be an impression in the chamber that 'incorporated hospital' under the act refers only to inpatient services. However, my understanding is that incorporated hospital under the act is a reference to a local health network, and that local health networks under the Health Care Act do indeed provide hospital services but they also provide community-based services.

I specifically want to ask the minister: under the Health Care Act, do incorporated hospitals deliver mental health services as inpatient services and as community-based services and, therefore, this legislation, this bill, in no way expands the scope to invest in public mental health services?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question and I apologise it has taken some time to find an answer, but I want to be as accurate as I can. My advice is that if it were a standalone urgent mental health centre it may not be covered under current regimes.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The honourable minister has given me an answer to a question I have not asked. The fact of the matter is that I am asking about public mental health services. The incorporated hospitals are local health networks under the Health Care Act. There is no need to expand the capacity for incorporated hospitals, local health networks, to acquire land for both their inpatient services and their community services as public health entities.

If the Labor government wants to talk about privatisation of mental health services engaged in the non-government sector that is a question for another stage in the discussion. But I think it is really important to clarify that the legislation that is already in place fully empowers public health services to acquire land for both inpatient services and for community-based services. They do it all the time.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is: yes, that is correct, and we are not changing that. We are just making sure that in the situation I outlined, or for SAAS, there is greater ability to acquire land.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The honourable minister invited me to think about the situation with the Urgent Mental Health Care Centre, and the Hon. Connie Bonaros invited us to do the same. There is only one Urgent Mental Health Care Centre in South Australia at the moment, and that is run by Neami, presumably on leased land on Grenfell Street rather than land owned by Neami. I just want to clarify: is it the government's intention that the government would use this power to acquire land on behalf of a private entity, e.g., Ramsay Health Care providing mental health care at the Adelaide Clinic, or non-government organisations such as Neami?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. My advice is that there is not an intention or anything currently before us that would be contemplated in circumstances such as that, but we are trying to contemplate as broad a range of possibilities to provide the best possible health care for South Australians.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I commend the government for that. As the Liberal Party, we have demonstrated in the last four years of government that we are willing to partner with non-government organisations like Neami to deliver urgent mental health care centres. We will cooperate with agencies such as Adelaide Clinic to partner in the delivery of services. But I would say to the parliament that it is a very significant step to go one step beyond that by contracting with private entities to provide holistic services and actually using the government's compulsory acquisition power for private entities, non-government organisations, to acquire land.

As the Liberal Party, to be honest with you, that is something we would look at, but this is a bill that has been rushed through. It was guillotined. Standing orders were suspended in the other place and the bill was not given due consideration. We as the Liberal Party regard ourselves as having a duty to legislate in a properly considered way. The crossbenchers constantly call for that.

All we are saying in this bill is that we are more than happy to treat SAAS for what it is: a public health service. It should be treated no differently to any other incorporated hospital. But we do believe it is a significant step to broaden that compulsory acquisition power to private and non-government organisations, and we believe that it deserves due consideration.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In his previous answer, the minister referenced concerns around the potential implications of the opposition's amendment in terms of definitional changes. Are there any other services, aside from mental health, that the government considers may well fall outside of the potential for acquisition were the opposition's amendment to be carried?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. There is nothing specific being contemplated at the moment but, for example, services that provide things like renal dialysis or ACCHOs—Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations that provide health services—but, overarching that, any land that was acquired under this would have to be vested in the minister.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Can I ask a question about the reasonableness test that is being referenced today, and I must say one of the elements that does concern me a little bit about the opposition's amendments is the removal of that test. Can the minister explain how that test works in practice? What is the criterion?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. As the honourable member points out, the bill expressly provides a reasonable test for compulsory acquisition. The test is not expressly found in the current acquisition provisions in section 40 of the current act when acquiring land for incorporated hospitals. I am advised, however, that it does appear in several other acts in respect of compulsory acquisition powers.

Under the proposed new section 90A, the minister, under the Health Care Act, may only acquire land subject to the Land Acquisition Act if the minister considers the acquisition is 'reasonably necessary for the purposes of the provision of health services'. What is reasonably necessary would depend on the particular factual circumstances, including the nature of the health service and geographical locations in question.

The Department for Health and Wellbeing's infrastructure group undertakes very detailed site planning processes, liaising with health service—

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I am sorry to interrupt you. I am having a lot of difficulty hearing the member.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will start that paragraph again. What is reasonably necessary will depend on the particular factual circumstances, including the nature of health services and geographical locations in question. The Department for Health and Wellbeing's infrastructure group undertakes very detailed site planning processes, liaising with health service planning experts in respect of infrastructure projects. This approach would naturally be followed in circumstances of compulsory acquisition as well as liaising with the Department for Infrastructure and Transport's property directorate.

Furthermore, the minister's decision would be constrained by the principles of administrative law, which in general requires certain limitations to be read into statutory provisions such as the one in this bill. For example, these principles would include requirements to act bona fide and reasonably, to take all relevant matters into consideration, to exclude irrelevant matters from consideration, and to only act for the authorised purposes.

The Land Acquisition Act also provides established processes which provide the opportunity for independent review of whether the acquisition is reasonably necessary for the purposes—in this case the health provision services—and this could include a judicial review of the initial decision.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would like to come back to the question the Hon. Rob Simms asked. It was predicated on the understanding of the government's position being that mental health services would be excluded through the opposition's amendment. I would like to specifically ask the government: is it the government's view that the opposition's amendment to insert SAAS in addition to incorporated hospitals would have any effect of excluding mental health services?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that, comparing what is currently under the act and what the act would be if the opposition's amendment got up, it may not have an effect on mental health care services. However, I do not think that is a correct comparison when you compare what the government is proposing with what it would be if the opposition amendment had got up. I am advised that things like those urgent mental healthcare services could be affected.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I certainly can see that point. That is the point. The point is that we may well want to expand our partnerships with community, non-government and not-for-profits. We may well want to use the compulsory acquisition power to do it, but let's properly consider that. Let there be no misunderstanding that our amendment does nothing—does nothing—to constrain public health services. It expands it by making it explicit that SAAS can use compulsory acquisition, including for its community-based services.

After all, it was the Marshall Liberal government that introduced the Mental Health Co-responder Program, which has ambulance teams working with mental health professionals in the community, delivering community mental health services. With the opposition's amendment, it would be possible to compulsorily acquire community-based facilities to support that program, no questions asked.

The honourable minister quite rightly points out that, as we continue to deliver the urgent mental health care centres that the Marshall Liberal government succeeded in successfully negotiating with the federal government, we may well want to undertake compulsory acquisition. We are more than happy to have the conversation about how that might work, but not in a bill that has been rushed through in one day in the house, no consultation with stakeholders, no consultation with the community. If we are a house that believes in due process, yes, we can agree with SAAS today, but let's have the bigger conversation in a more orderly way.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I appreciate the honourable member's view that the amendment from the Liberal opposition will not constrain it any further than the current act constrains it, but that is exactly the point. That is why we have this act before us. What the Liberals seek to do is constrain it compared to what the Labor bill before us does. There will be fewer things that will be compulsorily acquired for health services if the Liberals' amendment is accepted compared to the bill that is before us at the moment.

I think it is important to note as well that we are bringing it significantly into line with what a number of other jurisdictions do. The term 'health services', I am advised, is used in the acts in New South Wales and Queensland, for example, for the compulsory acquisition of land in these circumstances. The honourable member might say, 'Don't pass this bill because we don't need it because you can already do everything you can do if we have the amendment.'

That is the exact point. We do not think there should be the amendment. We think there should be the ability to do more, for the government to acquire land in circumstances where it is reasonably necessary for the provision of health services. I do not agree with the comparison the honourable member is trying to make, that it will be exactly the same if you take this out as it is now. That is the whole point of putting this bill up, to change it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Can I get back to the key point of this bill? In the government's briefings to the opposition, the only current purpose for which the government seeks this bill is in relation to SAAS. Could I ask the government what the SAAS facility is that will be facilitated by this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have that information with me, I am afraid.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Can I ask the minister to seek advice? After all, it is claimed that there is urgency with this. The parliament has an entitlement to know why it is urgent.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I advise the honourable member that there are currently two facilities under consideration by SAAS that this bill would have work to do. Due to commercial-in-confidence considerations I cannot outline the physical locations of those, but there are two under consideration at the moment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the honourable minister for his answer. I certainly do not want specificity that would compromise commercial confidentiality. Can I clarify: are these ambulance stations or is this the CBD operations centre that has been promised by the government?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question, and I am pleased to be able to provide further advice. My advice is that there are locations currently being considered for SAAS facilities that it is thought the provisions that are contained in this bill may be needed for. I think that answers what the honourable member was asking.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It certainly made it clear that the government intends to be vague, and we do not dispute that—we want to facilitate the acquisition of facilities that support SAAS. To follow up on the honourable minister's earlier advice to the council that, if land was acquired under this legislation, under this provision, it will be vested in the name of the minister. Let us say that it was an urgent mental health care centre, which presumably is contracted under a four-year contract perhaps. Does the government, in using the example of an urgent mental health care centre, think that at the end of a four-year contract the government is not only faced with the issue of whether or not to continue the contract but what will they do with the acquired asset at the end of that service?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What is the question?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I want to clarify: when the government is using the example of an urgent mental health care centre, is it suggesting that the land would be held in the name of the minister and that, if you like, the bundled property and the contract is such that if the contract is not continued, basically the government is left with a stranded asset.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. My advice is that, given the lengthy nature of the process that would have to be gone through, the tests involved in having to acquire land and the great amount of research and advice that goes into seeing when a service is needed, it would be a highly unlikely scenario that a service is needed and then, just a short time later, is not needed any more.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just to circle back to the general principle of acquisitions of property, can the government provide some examples of where the compulsory acquisition power is currently being used and whether the same principles would apply in this case?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it is a rarely used occurrence. In very recent times there have only been a handful of compulsory acquisitions commenced. Again, for commercial-in-confidence reasons, I cannot go into those but they are for the purposes of public hospitals.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: But outside of the health space, are there are other examples that the government can think of?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Do you mean not under this act?

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is the major place where this happens outside this act is under roads, under the Highways Act, for the Department for Infrastructure and Transport. Probably the most ventilated recent example is the project for South Road where there are compulsory acquisitions that occur.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just so I am clear, what the government is seeking to do is extend the principles that currently apply in terms of compulsory acquisition for highways and roads to health services?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that what are picked up are the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act. My advice is that the principles that would apply for the compulsory acquisition for roads are, under those Land Acquisition Act principles, the same that apply currently for hospitals and then would apply to what this act would extend to.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In the answer to the Hon. Robert Simms, the minister has indicated that the primary use of the Land Acquisition Act is in relation to highways. I would like to take the minister back to, if you like, the human services sector. Does the government have the capacity to compulsorily acquire land in relation to schools, in relation to community services such as those provided by the Department for Child Protection or the Department of Human Services?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This is not something that is the subject matter of experts in health, but my advice seems to indicate that, outside roads, there is the power to acquire for schools. But my advice is—and again I preface it by saying that the subject matter of the experts here is in the health area—they are not aware of how to acquire, for example, for the Department of Human Services or the Department for Child Protection.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the minister for his answer. So, by direct analogy, can the minister advise whether the education provisions for land acquisition allow the state government to acquire land on behalf of a private school?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think I was pushing at getting advice about what other departments do. As I say, the subject matter experts in that area are not here today.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That is why bills being debated in the parliament are given due consideration by consulting the stakeholders and consulting the community. The parliament is being asked to pass a provision which, in my mind, on my reading, would allow the government to acquire land on behalf of a private hospital. As the Liberal Party, we are happy to have that discussion, but that is a big step, and the government is not even able to tell us that they are willing to do that for private schools. Why should we not properly consider whether we should do it in relation to private hospitals?

If I could paint a scenario that comes out of my experience as a minister, I have had approaches from private developers who wanted me to use, if you like, public sector laws to give them an opportunity to fast-track a private sector proposal. On my reading of this bill, it is exactly what the Minister for Health and Wellbeing may well be asked to do by a private hospital.

They might be having trouble acquiring land to build a private hospital. The easy way out is to approach the minister and say, 'This is a health service under this act, so broadly written that you could access the land acquisition power.' These are matters that should be properly considered by the parliament, properly consulted with stakeholders, properly consulted with the community. This is another rushed bill that risks being another botched effort.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his contribution because that is exactly the purpose: to make sure that it is easier to provide the health services to South Australians that they need, full stop.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Frankly, I do not buy the argument that has just been put. I just want the minister to confirm: we are not talking about a hotel at Adelaide Oval; we are talking about the provision of health services to help with a health crisis.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: A private hospital.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have asked the questions. Attorney, can you confirm for the record: when I attended my briefing, I asked specific questions in relation to the provision of private health services and that was because a lot of the services inevitably, regardless of how they are built or who they are built by, will be run by private operators, so in many instances these are not services that are actually provided by government or public sector employees, they are privately run services that benefit our communities in terms of providing health services. Can we confirm that that is what we have discussed at the briefings on this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that, in short, yes, and I think that was the exact point I was trying to make to the Hon. Mr Wade. This is about providing health services to South Australians who need them.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Thank you. Can we confirm that under the provisions of the bill the minister will need to be satisfied and be able to stand by the fact that those are reasonably necessary for the provision of health services?

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Lots of politicians have done great work at creating this health crisis. I would like to see someone try to fix it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I can confirm that and, furthermore, that such decisions would be judicially reviewable.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can we confirm also, just so we are all crystal clear, that nothing we are doing here is out of line with any other acquisition process that already exists in the Land Acquisition Act? Can we confirm that the compensation, the appeals, the objections, the solatium all apply? We are not doing away with any of those things? Is it correct that all the normal benefits and inherent protections that apply under the act for every other acquisition apply to this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is yes.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: And that is no different from acquiring commercial buildings for the purposes of building a casting yard that might still go back into private hands once the road or the works around the road are finalised, so the government might still put that land back into private hands once that road or project is completed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is yes.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can we just confirm, again, that by striking out the reasonable test we are actually watering down the provisions of the bill, albeit only in relation to SAAS buildings?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On merely a matter of process, the amendment has not been moved.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: We are talking at clause 1, mate—settle down. It is okay.

The CHAIR: We are still at clause 1, which is pretty broad. The honourable Attorney, I will sort that out.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that in relation to what is being proposed as an amendment, it takes out the 'reasonable and necessary' for the purposes of both incorporated hospital and SAAS, as proposed in this bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can we finally confirm for the record that, in comparison to every other Australian jurisdiction, we are the only one that limits this to hospitals? Other jurisdictions go way beyond our existing definition to include 'health services' or 'public purposes related to health services'?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can advise that Victoria's health services legislation provides power for the relevant minister, under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act in that jurisdiction, to acquire land for the broader public health services and not just hospitals. The New South Wales legislation contains both the power for the government to acquire land for health service and ambulance function.

Queensland, probably of all Australian jurisdictions, provides for the most compulsory acquisition. Land may be acquired for the purpose of ambulance services, health facilities, as well as hospitals and services in relation to the operations of hospitals. I am advised it is broader in WA, further from just hospitals. I am advised that other Australian jurisdictions, to varying extents and the language used, provide for their governments to compulsorily acquire land for health purposes more broadly than just hospitals.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: With all due respect, minister, it may well be that some legislation is broader, particularly in Queensland, but Victoria, for example, specifically limits it to public health services, so what is being proposed here is broader in terms of private, not-for-profit and community groups.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member. That is what I have said. As I said, 'other jurisdictions to varying extents', and that is why I read out some of the different examples.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can we confirm also for the record, because one of the issues that was raised with me was that we could be using any given definition that applies to health services, that the definition that we are actually looking at is the definition that exists under the Health Care Act 2008, namely 'health service' means 'a service associated with' and then that list that we have referred to? Is that the only definition that we are going to be relying on in terms of this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that is absolutely correct.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am almost being provoked, Mr Chair. The suggestion that that is a limited definition is not the case. For example, I think the honourable Leader of the Opposition commented that promotion of health and wellbeing could be as broad as a gymnasium, a sports facility or a walking trail.

I would just put it again to this council that the Liberal Party is more than happy to have a conversation about broad partnerships, but due process—this bill was tabled the Tuesday of last sitting week in the House of Assembly, guillotined through that house the next day. It has not been subject to stakeholder and community consultation. We are more than happy to have the conversation with stakeholders and the community. I will just remind the crossbenchers of their stated principles for due consideration by parliament and the community.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I would remind members of this chamber that we come here with the exact same time frame as they do and do our level best with five members between us all to be on top of the brief for this bill. We get here, we do our consultation and we are still here.

Can I confirm for the record, particularly on something that is non-contentious, which is what we would have assumed this would be—I am only speaking for us, but I think that is the general consensus amongst the crossbench—that, in response to that question, health service means:

(a) a service associated with:

(i) the promotion of health and well-being; or

(ii) the prevention of disease, illness or injury; or

(iii) intervention to address or manage disease, illness or injury; or

(iv) the management or treatment of disease, illness or injury; or

(v) rehabilitation or on-going care for persons who have suffered a disease, illness or injury; or

(b) a paramedical or ambulance service; or

(c) a residential aged care service; or

(ca) a research, pathology or diagnostic service associated with veterinary science; or

(d) a service brought within the ambit of this definition by the regulations

but does not include a service excluded from the ambit of this definition by the regulations.

Can I confirm that that is the definition and the only definition that we are all referring to?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised, yes, that is the definition contained. I think it is also worth adding to the Hon. Stephen Wade's contribution that it is not just doing any of these things willy-nilly because you feel like it. Under the legislation we have before parliament, which the Liberals are seeking to change, it has to be reasonably necessary for the purposes of the provision of the health services.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: So you would not be able to go and open a golf club because it might be promoting health and wellbeing if the minister—and that will fall on the minister's shoulders—cannot pass that test, and is that likely to pass the reasonable test that is outlined in the bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I would never propose to substitute myself as to what a court might say in the purpose of judicial review. However, it would need to be reasonably necessary, and that test is subject to judicial review, so a minister in making these decisions would have to be pretty confident that it was reasonably necessary. There are formed bodies of law on what that entails and what it means.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Could the Attorney, also representing the Minister for Health and Wellbeing, clarify what reasonable and necessary relates to? It is not for the courts to say, 'Is it reasonably necessary for the health and wellbeing of South Australians to have a golf club at Grange?', but whether it is reasonably necessary to deliver a golf club at Grange that the land be acquired. Surely the Attorney is not suggesting that judicial review is going to develop health planning and policy?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to read it again. I think I made this point before. The minister's decision will be constrained by the principles of administrative law in general, which requires certain limitations to be registered statutory powers, such as the one in this bill. For example, these principles would include the requirements to act bona fide and reasonably, to take all relevant matters into consideration, to exclude irrelevant matters from consideration, and to only act for an authorised purpose.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wade, I will listen to what you have to say. I think the committee should move towards the clauses with the amendments. This has been well canvassed.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sure, and I would make the point that the honourable Attorney-General—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Can you not point, mate? You know that is unparliamentary and you do it all the time. Hands down, Wadey.

The CHAIR: Order! Attorney, listen to the Hon. Mr Wade's questions, please.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The honourable Attorney finished his remarks by saying, if it was for an authorised purpose, it would be permitted. The point I am making is that the authorised purpose, the delivery of their health service, is the golf club. So it is not whether or not the golf club is reasonably necessary to facilitate the health and wellbeing of South Australians, it is whether or not the acquisition of the land is reasonably necessary to deliver the golf club. This is extremely broad, and I believe that it deserves much more thorough consideration by the parliament. If this council wants to let it through to the keeper on, 'Let's trust the government,' that is not the opposition's position.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move my amendment in an amended form as follows:

Amendment No 1 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 2, lines 13 to 15 [clause 3, inserted section 90A(1)]—

Delete 'for the purposes of the provision of health services' and substitute:

for the purposes of an incorporated hospital or SAAS

I move my amendment as circulated, in an amended form, concerning deleting the words, 'if the Minister considers that the acquisition of the land is reasonably necessary'. We acknowledge the concern by the crossbench and the government on the removal of these words around reasonably necessary and the thought that it would water down the amendment. Therefore, by now leaving in those words but deleting 'for the purposes of the provision of health services' and substituting those words with 'for the purposes of an incorporated hospital or SAAS' will, in effect, limit the acquisition power to incorporated hospitals and SAAS only.

There would also be a consequential amendment to the proposed section 90A(2) to delete reference to 'a HAC', a health advisory council established under the Health Care Act. The proposed amendment to section 90A(1) limits the section's application to incorporated hospitals and SAAS only and therefore it would be unnecessary to refer to HACs in 90A(2), as the amended 90A(1) would not limit or affect the powers of a HAC. I note, however, that if my amended amendment is not successful, given the fact that my amendment No. 2 is consequential, I will not be moving it.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Centofanti, it is not an amended amendment; it is the amendment that you have moved in that form.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Yes, in an amended form.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: As I indicated in my second reading remarks, I was intending to listen to the debate. I have reflected on the contributions made by members and, in particular, listened to the responses of the minister. I am concerned by the amendments that the opposition are proposing, in that they may limit the power of the government in terms of these acquisitions in ways that may make it difficult to address the health crisis.

I do understand the arguments that have been made by the Hon. Mr Wade and the Hon. Ms Centofanti, but I do also think, as a general principle, that if these rules are good enough to use for acquisition of private land to build a highway to allow more roads and to allow more cars on our roads and all of the adverse consequences that flow from that for our environment and our community wellbeing, then I am not sure why we would not apply the same principles when it comes to health services that might actually help people in the community.

So whilst I do understand the arguments that have been put, we are not in a position to support the opposition's amendments.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I think I have made the point during my contribution on the second reading and during this discussion that we will not be supporting the amendment in either form.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will not be supporting the opposition's amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Schedule 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) (16:48): 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