HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-08-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 June 2025.)

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (16:47): I rise as the lead speaker for the Liberal Party opposition on this bill today to indicate our support and welcome it as an important move in protecting South Australians in times of emergency. The Emergency Management Act has been used a lot more in recent years, with emergencies becoming more complex and lasting longer. There have only been 10 declarations made in the act's 20-year history, with three of them occurring in the last four years. Prior to COVID, the longest emergency declaration period lasted just four days. It was 793 days for COVID and 118 days for the River Murray flood.

This bill is the result of the first full-scale review since the act was created in 2004. The review involved 15 government stakeholders, 74 public submissions, including from former Premier Steven Marshall, former Minister for Health Stephen Wade, and member for Finniss, David Basham. The review produced 28 recommendations, which have been largely informative in drafting this bill.

Notably, the bill introduces a dedicated State Recovery Coordinator, a position which has always been made in an emergency, but now the role will exist outside of an emergency period also. The bill also introduced a new declaration category—state of alert—for upscaling and downscaling emergencies. We see this as important in sending the right message to the public.

Whilst we are in support of this bill, we do have some concerns. We want to ensure that this piece of legislation is meeting the expectations of the review and of the recommendations. There are now fewer restrictions on recovery operations on private property. There needs to be an attempt to contact property owners before carrying out work on private property, and we need assurances that there will be guidelines for operating emergency response on private property.

There is also the need to ensure there are protections for vulnerable people, which is the subject of our first amendment. We know that vulnerable people are at much higher risk in an emergency—age, disability, chronic illness, homelessness, etc. Recommendation 1 of the Emergency Management Act independent review was that the guiding principles should reference that specific planning for vulnerable people is required. The government's bill does not mention that specific planning is required for vulnerable people.

The review draws attention to the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, which considered the specific impacts of emergencies on vulnerable people. The commission noted that nearly half the people who died in those terrible bushfires were classed as vulnerable because they were aged less than 12 years or more than 70 years, or because they were suffering from acute chronic illness or disability.

The commission considered it necessary for the state to recognise the needs of vulnerable people who might need early warning assistance or separate consideration. Submissions to the review highlighted the importance of considering vulnerable people in the emergency management space. SAPOL's submission stated that there was a need to specifically consider vulnerable communities and, as per the recommendation, the act's objectives and guiding principles should explicitly reference that specific planning is required for vulnerable people.

The government has said that it accepts all 28 recommendations, including two in principle. If it does accept recommendation 1, the bill should acknowledge vulnerable people and require specific planning to address their needs, which again is the subject of our first amendment. We will attempt to make a slight amendment to the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendment also, potentially, to insert 'agricultural environments' as well as the marine environments that the honourable member has included in her amendment. With that, I will conclude my remarks in support, broadly, of this amendment bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:51): I rise to speak on the Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024. This bill, as we know, has been around for some time, but is also our response to what were unprecedented times when our state, the country and the world was confronted with COVID-19. As has just been outlined, following that pandemic a review of the relevant legislation was undertaken. About 28 recommendations were made, all of them accepted in principle by the government. This bill is the end result of that, dealing with those 28 legislative recommendations. They are intended to strengthen the said legislation by improving clarity, strengthening roles and responsibilities and introducing new elements to support responding to future known and unknown events in emergencies.

It is quite timely that we are dealing with this, given that we are dealing with another crisis that is unprecedented in this state. The act provides for the framework and principles for coordinating activities before, during and after emergencies. It assigns key responsibilities and gives necessary powers for response and recovery operations, and it serves as a last resort piece of legislation that is only utilised once the powers available under surrounding legislation have been exhausted. That is a critical point in this legislation and this framework we have in this state.

I note previous comments about the fact that our legislative arrangements in this state do not necessarily align with other jurisdictions, but we do have other pieces of legislation, including the South Australian Public Health Act. The idea is that we do not trigger the Emergency Management Act in this jurisdiction unless and until we have extensively exhausted the avenues available to us via those other pieces of legislation. I was on the committee that reviewed the South Australian Public Health Act post COVID as well, and note some of the changes we made to that legislation at the time as a result of COVID-19 and our responses to it.

One of the points that I am particularly pleased to see included in this bill is this step-down or step-up approach that has been recommended and agreed to by the government. If we think back to COVID, powers that are exercised under this and the state of emergency can last, as we saw, for a very, very long time.

Aside from the fact that it creates a level of confusion in the community, I think it also undermined and watered down some of the risks that were presented to community. So after a while, once the immediate dangers had not disappeared but had lessened, we all became quite immune to declarations that were in place. That is certainly something that I think ought to have been addressed and I am glad to see it has been addressed. I think the way the government has approached this in line with the recommendations is a sensible one in terms of stepping up and stepping down those issues.

We are discussing this now, again, in the context of algal bloom, and we can see that the same sorts of issues—indeed, a lot of them were canvassed today during question time—do exist when we have these sorts of situations and the need for us to be able to deal with them effectively. I think there are a lot of lessons that have been learnt by all of us in relation to how we responded to COVID.

I will take this opportunity to commend the way that this parliament dealt with COVID-19. It was something that was not only unprecedented but new to all of us. The fact that we have an independent coordinator who is removed from politics and not influenced by, and should not be influenced by, political parties and their decisions of the day is critically important in this. Having the Commissioner of Police act in that capacity is intended, very deliberately, to ensure that we do not politic with something as critical and deadly as COVID-19. So they are hugely important factors and I am glad to see that some of them have been addressed in this bill.

There are things that we did wrong through COVID, from my perspective, that simply will not be addressed through this bill, through any amendments to this bill, or indeed through any legislation. I think if you spoke to any family who lost a family member during COVID-19, they will know only too well what it is that I am speaking of. My only hope is that if we are, as we may inevitably be, ever confronted with an issue like this again, the one thing we never repeat and something that cannot be dealt with by legislation are those elements of our response that were completely devoid of empathy, of compassion and of heart for the families who were effectively left to pick up the pieces of COVID.

They have lifelong impacts on families and I think, despite the fact that we had this amazing record of how we came out of COVID, the one thing that saddens me to this day is that those measures, whilst good on paper and in principle, were, as I said, absolutely devoid in many instances of the empathy and compassion that we ought to have exercised. That is not something you can legislate for. I think it was David Penberthy who probably hit the nail on the head post COVID around those sorts of impacts.

Again, if anyone has been touched by this, as my family was, I cannot begin to describe to you what it would be like having a family member who passes from COVID and the sorts of restrictions that were placed on families, on their kids, on their parents, when it came to spending their final moments with a family member. I cannot imagine the grief of families knowing that they had family members who were in aged-care and retirement facilities and the fear that those family members would have been confronted with, particularly if there were things like dementia at play and Alzheimer's and all sorts of conditions.

That fear would have plagued those people in the final hours of their lives, and I certainly hope we have learned our lesson from that because, for my part, that is the one thing that we did absolutely fail at when we dealt with COVID. Again, I think it was David Penberthy who hit the nail on the head for me personally and more broadly when he wrote of this. I do not want to see us go back there again. Those things though, like I said, cannot be dealt with by legislation. There has to be an element of give and take and flexibility, just like we have been talking about today around the algal bloom, when it comes to dealing with the human side and human elements of something as confronting as COVID-19.

The only other thing I will say with respect to that is that, I think if you were in this place and you lived through COVID the way we did as members of parliament, you would know that there is absolutely a need for very quick responses. This parliament dealt with those as expeditiously and effectively as it could under the circumstances, but we were all in the same position: we did not know. That does not mean that we did not set up the frameworks around the response committees and whatnot to deal with them. On that particular note, I think I will take this opportunity to commend the work of the former health minister, who I thought did an exceptional job at guiding us through what was a very difficult time for our state.

I was going to say more about COVID itself, but I think I will leave it at that. The only other thing I will mention is that obviously we are dealing with and now being confronted with another crisis of unprecedented terms that we have not seen in this state before, certainly not at the magnitude that we are seeing today, and that is one that we have heard about today and for months now around algal bloom. I do note that, on that front, I have filed one amendment to this bill. It is not specifically or explicitly related to algal bloom, but it is explicitly related to our marine environments, including our marine flora and fauna.

For those members who are not aware, we have a piece of legislation here that sets the framework underpinning that legislation. Of course, it is the SEMP, the State Emergency Management Plan, as well as a number of other guidelines and documents that underpin this framework. It is within that particular State Emergency Management Plan that we list the sorts of things that qualify as a natural disaster. The list includes fires, it includes rains, it includes extreme weather, and it includes environmental damage.

I have sought to include one amendment that would require us to explicitly list in the things that are canvassed by that plan strategies relating to emergencies that cause or threaten to cause damage to marine environments, including marine flora and fauna. The algal bloom outbreak in this state might not be the only one; we do not know what is to come. That is the point of this legislation. It has to be broad enough to anticipate the sorts of things that might come and our ability to deal with them effectively.

As I said at the outset, this is a piece of legislation of, for want of a better term, last resort; that is, there are other pieces of legislation there that we exhaust fully first before we turn to the emergency management plan. But when we get to the Emergency Management Act and the framework that underpins it, including the plan, then there can be no question as to whether something like algal bloom or whatever else it is that gives rise to marine environment damage is included in the framework. That is the purpose of this amendment, and I am hopeful that it will be supported across all sides of the chamber today.

With those words, I think I will speak to some of the amendments that others have proposed when we actually get to them. Again, I thank the government for their time on this bill and also for ensuring that those 28 recommendations that were made were covered. However, I reaffirm the plea that I have made that, as we are seeing now, there is a human toll and a human cost to things like COVID and indeed the algal bloom crisis, and it is really critical that we respond to the human toll, the human cost and the mental health toll in an appropriate way. I do not think we have done that well in the past. I think we have a lot to learn from the way we have conducted ourselves previously and the way we have gone about these things, and I am very hopeful that we will not repeat the same errors going forward.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (17:05): I rise to speak in support of the Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I welcome this bill as it is the product of a thorough review of South Australia's emergency management framework that reflects the evolving nature of the risks that our community faces, from bushfires and floods to pandemics, natural disasters and cyberthreats.

The scale and complexity of recent unprecedented emergencies, particularly the Black Summer bushfires, the COVID-19 pandemic, the River Murray floods and now the algal bloom, tested the limits of our existing legislation. These devastating events show that our emergency management arrangements must be more agile, more coordinated and much more recovery focused. I recognise the importance of the introduction in this bill of a statutory State Recovery Coordinator, which will help ensure that recovery is not treated as an afterthought but as a core part of emergency management.

The recognition of volunteers and the identification of vulnerable populations in planning is also a meaningful step forward. Volunteers are often the first to respond and the last to leave. Their local knowledge, commitment and resilience are invaluable. The victimisation protections in this bill reflect the vital role volunteers play in emergency management and recovery. I also note that the Hon. Connie Bonaros mentioned compassion and the human elements that need to be considered; those are certainly very critical.

The proposed state of alert mechanism is a significant reform. It allows for earlier and more flexible responses to emergent threats even before a full emergency declaration is warranted. This could be particularly useful in situations where escalation is uncertain but risks are real, such as slow-moving floods or emerging cyber incidents. However, I do question the functional distinction between a state of alert and a declared emergency.

While the bill outlines that the powers under a state of alert mirror those of a full declaration, including issuing directions and overriding laws, the threshold of activation is lower. Is this simply a matter of changing the public messaging around the threat of the emergency? It could be seen as a way of activating the extensive powers of emergency declaration at a much lower threshold. I note that the final report of the independent review stated, and I quote:

If a new declaration type is introduced, it must be clear and have defined limits. It should include requirements that the use of a State of Alert or similar declaration is required to be clearly communicated and accessible for people so that it can be understood by everyone in the community.

It would need to strike the balance of increasing the agility of the [Emergency Management] Act and its powers, while maintaining appropriate safeguards and appropriately interfacing with other legislation.

While I fully support the need for additional flexibility to allow for the scaling up and scaling down of emergency responses, and greater ability to prepare for and recover from emergencies, it would be really helpful if the minister could outline exactly how this legislation achieves this important balance.

It is also worth noting how the nature of emergency declarations in South Australia has changed over time. Historically, declarations under the Emergency Management Act were short-lived, often lasting only a matter of hours or days, but more recently we have seen a shift. The COVID-19 pandemic required a major emergency declaration that remained in place for 793 days—more than two years—and the River Murray flood declaration lasted 118 days. This shift reflects a new reality: emergencies are no longer always sharp, short and manageable events. They are increasingly prolonged, complex and compounding, requiring sustained coordination, clear leadership and flexible powers that can scale with the situation.

The reforms in this bill, particularly the introduction of a state of alert and the statutory State Recovery Coordinator, are a direct response to the new norm. They provide a tool to manage long duration emergencies more effectively while maintaining appropriate checks and balances. As a member of the select committee on the River Murray floods, I have heard and seen firsthand evidence provided to us about how critical it is to have clear lines of responsibility and coordination during recovery.

I note that many of the recommendations in this bill align with the concerns raised during the inquiry and detail in the committee's report, particularly around recovery, leadership and the need for better integration across departments. I also want to acknowledge the extensive consultation that informed this bill.

Feedback was received from 75 agencies, organisations and individuals, including emergency services volunteers, local government and community groups. Importantly, 98 per cent of the submissions supported or partially supported the introduction of a new class of declaration to support scaled emergency responses. This level of engagement reflects a strong consensus across sectors that our emergency management legislation must evolve to meet contemporary challenges.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to former Premier Steven Marshall and to former Minister for Health and Wellbeing the Hon. Stephen Wade, who were leading figures in guiding South Australia through the COVID-19 pandemic. Both of them have made incredibly compassionate and thoughtful contributions to the independent review that informed this bill, along with many others who were at the forefront of confronting the challenges of the time. I acknowledge and thank them all for their input and engagement in shaping our emergency management framework.

While the government accepted, or accepted in principle, all 28 recommendations from the independent review, I wish to briefly comment on one recommendation that was not adopted in full. The review recommended incorporating 'an explicit mechanism in the Emergency Management Act to facilitate the mobilisation of the public sector workforce when necessary to respond to a declared emergency'. This recommendation was accepted in principle, but the bill goes further, allowing the Premier to direct public sector resources at any time not connected to a declaration.

I understand the reasoning for wanting to ensure flexibility in mobilisation, particularly in the early stages of a slow-moving or compounding event; however, it does raise important questions about how and when significant government resources are deployed, and under what level of scrutiny. As we move towards implementation, I encourage the government to provide clear guidelines on how this power is used, so that mobilisation decisions are transparent, proportionate and responsive, and aligned with the intent of the act.

I am offering some constructive feedback here to highlight the need for ongoing refinement as we respond to increasingly complex emergencies. The six-year review clause is a prudent safeguard, giving parliament a chance to revisit how these powers are applied.

I look forward to further clarification throughout the committee stage and will consider all proposed amendments by all honourable members on their merits. In conclusion, I indicate my support for this bill and its intent to modernise our emergency management legislation, ensuring that agile response and planned recovery are under full consideration.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:14): I rise to speak on the Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024. It appears that the extraordinary powers used by the executive government under the Emergency Management Act and the South Australian Public Health Act to close borders, lock down the state, impose social distancing restrictions, mandate vaccines and mask-wearing, and arrest noncompliant citizens are not enough for the current Labor government. The Malinauskas Labor government needs more power and they need it now.

But according to the Minister for Emergency Services, the people of South Australia should not be alarmed. These amendments to the act will only be used to empower the government to meet the unique challenges of cyberterrorism, climate change and natural disasters. Once again, we have the 'nothing to see here' approach from this government: the all-too-familiar spin and stonewalling while in the meantime this extraordinary bill is catapulted through the House of Assembly without opposition and arrives in this place to be rubberstamped.

And it is an extraordinary bill: a bill which further entrenches and broadens the excessive powers obtained under the South Australian Public Health Act in 2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic, with limited parliamentary oversight or safeguards and complete disregard for individual rights or freedoms.

This is a dangerous piece of legislation—one that should be ardently opposed by all members of this parliament, given that we are here to represent the will of the people and to provide some check on executive power, especially in the face of such an extraordinary proposal which can only be described as a brazen assault on the rights of the South Australian people under the guise of emergency protection. Students of history will be aware of how this strategy has been employed by various totalitarian regimes in the past to exert control over individual citizens and political opponents. In short, never let a good crisis go to waste.

However, under this proposal before us the government has introduced a new mechanism that will trigger its emergency powers before the emergency has even occurred. By inserting section 21A, it is now possible for the State Coordinator to declare a state of alert if it appears that an emergency 'is likely to occur, or is likely to occur if steps are not taken to prevent it, and it is necessary or desirable to exercise powers'. The extension of emergency powers to encompass what the State Coordinator considers a potential emergency is deeply concerning, given that there is no requirement to provide the evidentiary basis for such a declaration.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government issued an emergency declaration that lasted 793 days without providing any evidentiary justification to the parliament. If this power is extended to 'likely emergencies' it must come with appropriate parliamentary oversight, including not only the tabling of evidence to justify the declaration but also a limit on how many times this declaration can be extended.

Under my proposed amendment 21AA, if a declaration is made or extended the minister must provide a report to both houses of parliament summarising the advice that was relied on in making or extending the declaration. This is a reasonable measure that will provide an appropriate level of parliamentary oversight and disclosure without obstructing the need for government efficiency in a time of a legitimate crisis.

Under the government's proposal, the new 'state alert' mechanism will also be applied to emergency declarations made under section 24A of the act for any public health incident or emergency. Given the concerns regarding government overreach during the COVID-19 pandemic and the disputed science over social distancing, mask-wearing, mandated vaccines and extended lockdowns, any future public health emergency or state of alert should immediately require the establishment of an independent advisory council consisting of members from a wide range of experts, leaders and professionals who can objectively advise the government of the day on any incident or emergency related to the health and safety of the community.

In this way, the people of South Australia can have some confidence that the science surrounding any declaration of a public health emergency or alert will extend beyond the bureaucratic corridors of the government. With my proposed amendment to section 88 of the South Australian Public Health Act 2011, I will be seeking to suspend orders to compel the minister to establish an advisory committee to provide independent advice to the Chief Public Health Officer and the State Coordinator. This committee will consist of persons with expertise and relevant experience and must include persons who are not state public servants.

Above all, my greatest concern—shared by the Law Society and many in the legal profession—is the extraordinary powers given to the State Coordinator and authorised officers under section 25 of the act and further consolidated by the government's proposed amendments.

Back in 2022, I opposed the retention of emergency powers under section 25 while removing any safeguarding legislation. Well, here we are again, and for the avoidance of doubt these extraordinary powers currently allow for the State Coordinator or authorised officer to enter, break into land, building, structure or vehicle; to remove or destroy any building, structure, vehicle, animal or thing; to submit any person to decontamination procedures; to isolate and segregate people; and to direct people to undergo medical observation, diagnostic procedures or treatment, amongst other powers.

The most concerning clause included in this extensive list of powers under section 25 is subclause (2), which provides for the exercise of any prescribed power. The Law Society and many in the legal profession have called for the removal of this clause or the inclusion of a proportionality clause to counter the clear excess of such a broad provision. To address the issue of proportionality, I have included an amendment to section 24B(1) to ensure that powers exercised under this section must be reasonable in the circumstances.

Nevertheless, as stated previously, such unaccountable powers are clearly not enough for the current government as it seeks to reaffirm the excess already evident in the act, as well as remove any smidgen of possible restraint, as can be seen by the government's proposed removal of the simple phrase 'using such force as is necessary'. Such an intentional removal of a clause that requires authorised officers to apply force only to an extent that is necessary should concern all South Australians, as it highlights an intention to use force indiscriminately and without restraint.

In a further extension of section 25 powers, proposed subclause (5) allows for authorised officers to discharge power, even if to do so would contravene another law of the state. In addition to this, subclause (5)(c) states that directions or requirements given by authorised officers, which may be issued orally, by SMS or by email, may apply to a person or class of persons in any place during any period and may require or allow a person or class of persons to act in contravention of another law of the state and may affect the lawful rights or obligations of any person or class of persons.

This is nothing short of chilling, especially when you consider the absence of any safeguards or any reference to proportionality or oversight, and certainly no mention of individual rights other than to state how such rights may be violated. If this was not enough, the proposed insertion of section 26AB outlines how regulations may modify or dispense with procedural requirements, law, procedural fairness.

While the dispensing of procedural fairness will only occur on the request of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, we must nevertheless ask ourselves in what sort of system an independent judicial officer becomes complicit in the removal of a citizen's fundamental rights. What sort of dystopian nightmare does the government envisage for the future of South Australia? Whatever the future may hold for South Australians, our experience with the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us that it is not so much the virus itself but the response that will ultimately cause the greatest harm to ourselves and the community.

The people of South Australia do not have the benefit of legislation which protects their human rights, and in the absence of appropriate parliamentary oversight it is a great concern that this proposal puts the rights and freedoms of all current and future South Australians at risk. This is why I will be seeking suspending orders for the establishment of an emergency direction, accountability and oversight committee that will require the minister to report on the reasons for issuing a direction, as well as providing either house of parliament with the power to disallow a direction.

It is my sincere hope that the government and members of this place will consider the importance of parliamentary oversight and proportionality when voting on this proposal, because the people of South Australia deserve a government and parliament that will protect them not only from potential disasters or public health emergencies but also from the excesses of any current or future authoritarian bureaucrat who might abuse these emergency powers to persecute and oppress their political opponents.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:23): I rise to speak briefly on the Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill and to indicate that I will be supporting the bill on behalf of the Greens. The bill makes a series of important changes to implement the recommendations of the 2024 independent review of the Emergency Management Act, and in doing so it ensures that our state can effectively prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters.

It introduces the new category of 'state of alert' to enable the State Coordinator flexibility in their response to emergencies and to more effectively manage public messaging during extended periods of emergency management. The bill also establishes a State Recovery Coordinator with responsibilities and powers to lead and coordinate recovery efforts, and it further recognises the contributions of volunteers and the crucial role they play in emergency management.

I would like to note that the Emergency Management Act specifies that an emergency may include an event that causes or threatens to cause 'harm to the environment, or to flora or fauna'. I do question, therefore, why the government has not already used this provision in the act to declare an emergency in relation to the toxic algal bloom crisis which has engulfed our shores over the past few months. It is the most significant environmental disaster in the modern history of our state. It has spread across our coastline, it has killed many thousands of sea creatures and it has taken a major toll on businesses, tourism and the mental health of all those who live and work on our coast.

I know my colleagues in Canberra, in particular Senator Hanson-Young, have been calling for the federal government to declare a national emergency, but indeed it makes sense for such an emergency to be declared here in South Australia. Scientists from the Biodiversity Council have warned that the wildlife impacts of the marine heatwave that has driven the catastrophic algal bloom are likely to be equivalent to those from the Black Summer bushfires and would need a similar level of response from government. Instead, the state government has been slow, ambiguous and flat-footed. This has contributed to deep public uncertainty about the scale of the crisis, the risk to the community and what support may be provided to communities that have been impacted.

Legislative frameworks for emergency management are only useful if the decision-makers are willing to pull those levers when a disaster occurs. The accelerating climate change is driving natural disasters like the toxic algal bloom. It is essential that our state has the resources, the capacity and the legislative framework that enable effective emergency responses to keep South Australians safe. We must also remember that unless we act urgently to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, these events will become more frequent and more damaging to our ecosystems, our communities and the industries that rely on them.

A number of speakers have touched on our collective experience dealing with COVID-19. I think it is fair to say that a number of decisions were made in often quite a rapid-fire way, and sometimes some of those decisions had curious or unintended consequences. In particular, in the health space, families were prevented from being able to visit loved ones who were in hospitals or experiencing significant health events and the like.

I know, in retrospect, a lot of those decisions can seem heavy-handed or cruel or potentially really lacking common sense, but I think also we do need to remember that governments and those who were charged with administering the act were doing so with the best of intentions, and their overarching intention was to save lives. Indeed, the Marshall government, which was leading our response to COVID-19, I think did lean very heavily on the expert advice at the time, and that was supported by the opposition and by other political parties in this place, so I do not make any criticism of the Marshall government for the work they did in managing that, at least at the initial stages. I think where things started to go awry was when they moved away from some of the advice and perhaps opened up the borders at a time when preparation had not been done.

The Hon. Ms Game has made a number of quite shocking claims about the dystopian future that awaits us if this bill passes the upper house. I do not share her pessimism about the future of our state should this fairly non-controversial bill pass through the upper house, but I did note that the member wants more protection for human rights of South Australians. I hope that she will support the Greens' push for a human rights charter. There was a parliamentary inquiry into this recently. All political parties present at the inquiry of the Social Development Committee, chaired by the Hon. Ian Hunter, recognised the benefit of some level of human rights protection.

The One Nation political party has traditionally opposed human rights and any form of human rights framework. Now that the Hon. Ms Game is free of the shackles of the toxic One Nation brand, I hope that she will consider that with fresh eyes, because human rights protection would certainly ensure that all South Australians are protected and probably allay many of the concerns that the honourable member has. With that, I conclude my remarks.

Before sitting down I might, just to save time, indicate my position on the amendments. I understand the Hon. Connie Bonaros is advancing an amendment to make expressly clear that these powers can be used in relation to marine life. My reading of the bill was that is already in prospect, but I think this amendment makes it crystal clear, and in light of current events that is helpful. I also understand that the Liberals are moving some amendments as well regarding protections for vulnerable people in emergency situations, and I have indicated that I am supportive of those amendments as well. I am not supportive of the Sarah Game amendments, and I am not sure whether others will be advanced on the floor, but I will certainly watch the debate.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (17:30): I rise to speak in support of the bill that is before us here. Like many other speakers, I am going to address some of the aspects of that—there will be some crossover as I do, I am certain. The Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024 amends the Emergency Management Act 2004, and the aim of that obviously is to modernise and, as other speakers have already outlined, strengthen our emergency management framework. The Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill implements all 28 legislative recommendations from the 2024 Independent Review of the Emergency Management Act 2004, which ensures the act remains fit for purpose in the face of what are some pretty increasingly complex and evolving emergency scenarios.

If we look back over how the Emergency Management Act has been used since about 2004, there was a commonality of it being used for that great poetry aspect of Australia, which is fires and floods. We had the Wangary fires, we had the Mount Osmond fires, we have had the Virginia floods and the Sampson Flat fires, but very quickly we started to move to an emergency management declaration for the statewide blackout. Obviously, we had the COVID-19 outbreak, we have had Tropical Cyclone Tiffany—there was an emergency management declaration for that—and the River Murray high-flow flood, which is a fairly extraordinary declaration that has gone on also for over 100 days.

What we are seeing is a complexity of these emergency management scenarios, which requires us to react. We have climate change, we have cyberthreats, we have prolonged natural disasters, and the review found that the Emergency Management Act is largely effective in dealing with them and has supported South Australia pretty well in managing its emergencies. Its recommendations aim to enhance the act by clarifying the responsibilities, strengthening that fantastic thing, governance, and introducing new provisions to prepare or better prepare for the future challenges, which are quite clearly coming at us all the time.

The key objectives of the Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill are to:

enhance the clarity and accountability in emergency roles and responsibilities;

introduce new mechanisms for flexible and scalable emergency response;

strengthen recovery operations and planning; and

ensure legislative adaptability to future emergencies as they arise.

The Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill updates the Emergency Management Act to ensure South Australia's emergency management framework reflects the lessons learned from recent disasters and positions the state better to manage future emergencies through improved coordination, flexibility and recovery planning.

The bill and the proposed amendments do not compromise the existing strengths of the Emergency Management Act, which is well understood by the emergency management sector, and provide flexibility to carry out emergency activities across a pretty broad spectrum of hazards. The bill addresses all the recommendations of the independent review. Attachment C outlines all the relevant clauses implementing each recommendation.

I will go through a couple of aspects of the bill now, which other members have touched on somewhat. There is the introduction of the state of alert declaration. The bill introduces a new type of emergency declaration, which is the state of alert, based on models currently used in other states—I think Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory. This declaration can be made before or after the major emergency or disaster and allows for scaled emergency activities, which include public messaging.

The state of alert is designed to address emergencies with nonlinear trajectories. For instance, obviously we have the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretty clear example of that, but in juxtaposition to that, if you like, we have the state blackout, which had a fairly obvious end, which was once we got the power back on.

The establishment of a permanent State Recovery Coordinator is another aspect of the bill. A major amendment is the creation of a permanent state recovery coordinating role. That position will have defined powers to lead recovery efforts, including access to land and authority to build or remove temporary structures. These powers can be exercised only by authorised officers during a declared emergency or through regulation outside of one. To ensure clear accountability, the State Recovery Coordinator will report to the State Coordinator throughout the declared emergency.

The ministerial powers to modify procedural requirements are probably something that also bears some scrutiny. The bill will empower ministers to modify or, indeed, dispense with procedural requirements of any other act during a declared major emergency or disaster. This is actually already used in the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020. It is attempting to mirror those provisions and what the commonwealth already has in place where that is appropriate. Safeguards are included to exclude certain acts and, indeed, court proceedings, unless requested by the Chief Justice that there be a change to that factor.

In terms of public sector mobilisation, the bill empowers the Premier to direct the mobilisation of a public sector workforce and information sharing for the emergency response and recovery efforts. Indeed, as we are seeing with many of the new aspects of emergencies which are facing us, I think it is pretty clear that communication is key, and that would be the basis of that.

There will also be expanded powers for information gathering. The bill introduces powers to require information or documents to support emergency planning and decision-making. There are updates to objectives and the guiding principles in this bill, which will apply to the act. The amendment ensures that the act recognises the importance of mitigation, the role of volunteers as key contributors in emergency management and the need for specific planning for people at increased risk in emergencies, including vulnerable people. Other members have already gone to that, so I will leave that there.

At the statutory review clause, it requires a formal review of the Emergency Management Act within six years of this bill's commencement. There are additional amendments; I will not go to them now. They clarify definitions and roles. They update provisions related to electricity supply in emergencies. There is introduction of protections against victimisation for emergency volunteers, and there is an increase in penalties for breaches of confidentiality and impersonation.

I will just go quickly to the consultation which surrounded these amendments. The review was informed by pretty extensive consultation, including with SEMC, relevant emergency management stakeholders, state agencies and, indeed, local government bodies to understand what parts of the Emergency Management Act worked well and what parts could be improved. A senior executive reference group comprising emergency management stakeholders and legal experts advised the review on emergency management to give a more balanced view on potential areas for reform.

A formal consultation process for review commenced mid-November 2023 via the YourSAy website and concluded on 30 January 2024. A discussion paper was provided as part of the consultation documents to help individuals and organisations engage with that review. Through public consultation, the review received 40 written submissions and 25 survey responses, which included 35 submissions from community members, 19 submissions from state government agencies, 11 submissions from non-government organisations and 10 submissions from local government and representative organisations.

With all that said, I think this is a pretty functional amendment to a bill which is seeking to take an act which does work well but also, looking forward, is going to face new challenges in a new world environment of new emergencies, and I support it.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (17:39): The Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024 amends the Emergency Management Act 2004 to modernise and strengthen South Australia's emergency management framework. The amendment bill implements all 28 legislative recommendations from the 2024 independent review of the Emergency Management Act 2004, ensuring the act remains fit for purpose in the face of increasingly complex and evolving emergency scenarios such as climate change, cyberthreats and prolonged natural disasters.

The review found that the EM Act is largely effective and has supported South Australia well in managing emergencies. Its recommendations aim to enhance the act by clarifying responsibilities, strengthening governance and introducing new provisions to better prepare for future challenges. The key objectives of the EM amendment bill are to enhance clarity and accountability in emergency roles and responsibilities, introduce new mechanisms for flexible and scalable emergency responses, strengthen recovery operations and planning, and ensure legislative adaptability to future emergencies.

The amendment bill updates the EM Act to ensure South Australia's emergency management framework reflects the lessons learned from recent disasters and positions the state to better manage future emergencies through improved coordination, flexibility and recovery planning. The bill and the proposed amendments do not compromise the existing strengths of the EM Act, which is well understood by the emergency management sector and provides flexibility to carry out emergency activities across a broad spectrum of hazards.

The amendment bill addresses all the recommendations of the independent review. The bill introduces a new type of emergency declaration, called a state of alert, based on models used in Tasmania and the ACT. The declaration can be made before or after a major emergency or disaster and allows for scaled emergency activities, including public messaging. The state of alert is designed to address emergencies with nonlinear trajectories, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

A major amendment is the creation of a permanent State Recovery Coordinator role. This position will have defined powers to lead recovery efforts, including access to land and authority to build or remove temporary structures. These powers can be exercised by authorised officers during a declared emergency or through regulation outside of one. To ensure clear accountability, the State Recovery Coordinator will report to the State Coordinator during declared emergencies.

The bill empowers ministers to modify or dispense with procedural requirements of other acts during a declared major emergency or disaster. This is similar to provisions in the commonwealth National Emergency Declaration Act 2020. Safeguards are included to exclude certain acts and court proceedings unless requested by the Chief Justice. It empowers the Premier to direct the mobilisation of public sector workforce and information sharing for emergency response and recovery efforts. It introduces powers to require information or documents to support emergency planning and decision-making.

In updating the objectives and guiding principles, the amendment ensures that the act recognises the importance of mitigation, the role of volunteers as key contributors in emergency management and the need for specific planning for people at increased risk in emergencies, including vulnerable people. It requires a formal review of the Emergency Management Act within six years of the bill's commencement. It also clarifies definitions and roles and updates provisions related to electricity supply emergencies. It introduces protections against victimisation for emergency volunteers and increases penalties for breaches of confidentiality and impersonation.

The review was informed by extensive consultation, including with the SEMC, relevant emergency management stakeholders, state agencies and local government bodies, to understand what parts of the EM Act worked well and what parts could be improved.

A senior executive reference group, comprising emergency management stakeholders and legal experts, advised the review on emergency management to give a balanced view on potential areas for reform. A formal consultation process for the review commenced in mid-November 2023 via the YourSAy website and concluded on 30 January 2024. A discussion paper was provided as part of the consultation documents to help individuals and organisations engage with the review.

Through public consultation, the review received 40 written submissions and 25 survey responses. This included 35 submissions from community members, including current and former members of parliament; 19 submissions from state government agencies; 11 submissions from non-government organisations; and 10 submissions from local government and representative organisations. So you can see that extensive public consultation took place to ensure that we get it right in this bill. I urge everyone to support the bill.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (17:45): I thank all members for their contribution today. I can see that there is resounding support for the sense of why this is needed and why this review was undertaken. I look forward to discussing this further, in detail, through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:46): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable me to move an instruction without notice to the Committee of the Whole Council.

The PRESIDENT: The issue is that you need an absolute majority to pass that. There is not an absolute majority in the council, so that will lapse.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Hood–1]—

Page 3, lines 13 to 14 [clause 3(2), inserted paragraph (b)]—Delete 'persons at risk in an emergency' and substitute 'vulnerable persons at risk in an emergency and require specific planning to address those needs'

This amendment seeks to look at the wording around some of these amendments in regard to specific planning and vulnerable people, which was, as I understand, a reference in recommendation 1 of the independent review. I will have some questions for the government in clause 3 as well.

The CHAIR: While you are on your feet, do you want to ask your question?

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Recommendation 1 of the EMA independent review was that the guiding principles should be referenced: that specific planning for vulnerable people is required. This clause only regards the particular needs of the persons at risk. The question is: why does it not acknowledge that specific planning is required?

The review states that in the 2009 Victorian bushfires nearly half of those who died were considered vulnerable because they were under 12 or over 70, or suffered from a chronic illness and disability. Given the broad definition of a person at risk during an emergency, why does this clause not use instead the term 'vulnerable people'?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: In regard to the bill that is before us today, it is designed to be as flexible and agile as possible. There are instruments that support this bill, including the State Emergency Management Plan (SEMP), which is able to specify those vulnerable people and which agencies are responding, considering what emergency has been identified. The bill before us today is, I guess, the foundation which talks to its other relevant tools, including the SEMP. We will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 4 and 5 passed.

New clause 5A.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 4, after line 14—Insert:

5A—Amendment of section 5A—State Emergency Management Plan

Section 5A—after subsection (3) insert:

(4) The SEMP must include strategies of a kind referred to in subsection (1) relating to emergencies that cause, or threaten to cause, damage to marine environments, including marine flora and fauna.

I have already spoken to the amendment. It effectively seeks to ensure that the SEMP include strategies relating to emergencies that cause, or threaten to cause, damage to marine environments, including marine flora and fauna.

As I have already outlined during the second reading, there exists now a capacity to address aquatic disasters and marine issues, and indeed even marine pollution in the plan. The amendment mandates that the SEMP deal with marine environments—those sorts of forms of emergency. It makes it explicit that the plan must do that. We are seeing in real time the impacts of a marine environment disaster right now in our state. It is impacting our fisheries, our tourism and our regional coastal towns in unprecedented ways.

As I said during the debate, the current framework requires us to exhaust all other relevant legislation before we get to the Emergency Management Act, but it is a critical tool and one that we may need. It may not be in relation to algal bloom; it may be in relation to some other marine environmental disaster, and that is something that has not been anticipated in other pieces of legislation, which we know have to be exhausted first under the existing framework.

There is, of course, an argument that it is already covered and not necessary. That may very well be the case, depending on what is listed in the plan at the moment, and the list is quite extensive, but the amendment eliminates any question as to whether that is the case or not. It makes it explicit. It is entirely in keeping with current drafting and expectations and, given the current situation, I think it actually provides a lot of certainty, which is really what the community needs and wants at the moment. It is for those reasons that I hope it will be supported.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I move to amend the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendment as follows:

After 'threaten to cause, damage to', insert 'agricultural environments or'.

The amendment would then continue. We certainly support the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendments because we understand that, although she is not explicitly talking about a certain ecological disaster that is currently happening, this would ultimately frame that in being an emergency because it is threatening to marine environments.

It has caused the opposition to reflect on the fact that we have seen another unprecedented environmental tragedy in this state, namely a long-term drought. When we look at the definition of 'emergency' currently in the State Emergency Management Plan, we do see 'disruption to essential services'—one can say that the production of food in this state is an essential service—and 'the destruction of, or damage to, any property' and any 'harm to the environment'. It is the opposition's view that if we are talking about damage to the marine environments and explicitly stating this here in this amendment bill, then we should also do the same with agricultural environments as well.

The CHAIR: I was actually going to find out from the Hon. Ms Bonaros whether she was attracted to the amendment to her amendment before I asked the minister to comment on how she felt.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I think it would be useful for the minister to comment at this stage about the amendment itself.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: We are supportive of the original amendment that has been put forward by the Hon. Ms Bonaros. We are not supportive of the amendment from those opposite. We are finding out about it on the floor of the chamber. This is a bill that has been around in the parliament since November. This is not a new addition that has just found its way onto the floor in minutes: it went through the other chamber in November and has now found its way here. There has been plenty of time for an amendment to be put forward and not to be drafted on the go and on the run on the floor of the parliament.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Just sit down. Minister, continue.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I understand that primary industries, including agriculture, already have robust emergency management frameworks under agencies like PIRSA. PIRSA administrates a raft of legislation relating to primary industries, including the Biosecurity Act 2025 and a number of acts, including the Fisheries Management Act 2007. These are specifically designed to manage risks in the primary industries sector like diseases and outbreaks or biosecurity threats.

The Emergency Management Act 2004 is designed as a broad high-level framework that applies across all hazards and all sectors. It does not go into specific individual industries because it is meant to be flexible and adaptable to any emergency situation. By specifying particular industries, you are making the bill more complex and taking away its agility. The State Emergency Management Plan is another framework that goes with this bill, as I said earlier, but it does not go to the intent of what this bill is to highlight particular industries.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I thank the minister for her response, although I find it a little strange that she would be calling out an amendment made to an amendment that was filed today at 10.40.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: At least it is on a piece of paper.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That amendment may have been filed today, but I did my homework last week.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: We are amending an amendment. We do have the ability to think on our feet as we are doing these things. It is ultimately up to the government whether they support our amendment to the amendment or not, but we will continue to support the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendment if we are not successful.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Given it is my amendment, I guess I should speak to it. I understand the intent of what the opposition is seeking to do here. It is an issue that the Leader of the Opposition in this place has promoted in this place and argued strongly for—indeed, prior to the algal bloom outbreak I think we had these debates in this place. My suggestion to the Leader of the Opposition right now is: this is my priority and I do not want to see that compromised or sacrificed in any way.

I do take on board, though, the advice of the minister in relation to this. It is something that I have had lots of discussions with the Leader of the Opposition now about. The way that this amendment was framed was very broadly 'marine environment'. It does not focus on one particular issue or cause or outcome, and it is in keeping and consistent with the drafting that is in the plan at the moment.

I think the minister does have a valid point in terms of whilst certain words have been discussed during the course of this, and I think it is a lot better than before, whether we are talking about sectors or industries, as opposed to whether we are talking about environmental factors, the plan is very clear in terms of listing those factors, such as extreme weather, urban fire, rural fire, marine pollution, floods, rains, water contamination and so forth, as opposed to anything that can be industry specific or sector specific.

Marine environment—and this is why this was very carefully crafted and I did my due diligence and homework—can include the fishing sector but is not in any way, shape or form defined by or limited to the fishing sector. That is key to this amendment. As I said before, there is already an argument—and the government's response may not be one that the Leader of the Opposition is willing to accept—that environmental harm, as is currently drafted, could already include drought. Environmental harm could already include marine environment.

My point is that I am going to use this opportunity to make it explicitly clear that there are no limitations when it comes to that environmental harm insofar as it relates to our marine and aquaculture environments and marine and aquaculture flora and fauna. That is the purpose of the amendment. If there is further work to be done, then I suggest that is something that be looked at separately, but I am not in a position to actually compromise something that I would like to see inserted in this bill if there is no certainty on the part of the government that it will not cause any other issues.

I do note again, as I said at the outset and as I think the minister just reiterated, that there are other pieces of legislation. This is our legislation of, I call it, last resort, for want of a better term. Unlike those other pieces of legislation, we cannot be certain in this case that everything we need is covered when it comes to marine environment issues. That remains my position.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I acknowledge the comments that the honourable member has made. I think that is the point, I guess, to where we have been going. The amendment to the amendment is a place of last resort at the end of the day, because we have a drought and it will not be declared an emergency or disaster by those opposite. Hence why we have sought to make a very small amendment to this amendment by the Hon. Connie Bonaros. We certainly appreciate that she wants to see the intent of her amendment seen through. Again, we will certainly be supporting that, irrespective of whether our amendment is accepted by the committee or not.

The committee divided on the amendment to the amendment:

Ayes 6

Noes 11

Majority 5

AYES

Centofanti, N.J. Game, S.L. Girolamo, H.M.
Hood, B.R. (teller) Lensink, J.M.A. Pangallo, F.

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. (teller) Franks, T.A.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S.
Maher, K.J. Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.
Simms, R.A. Wortley, R.P.

PAIRS

Henderson, L.A. Martin, R.B.
Hood, D.G.E. El Dannawi, M.

Amendment to the amendment thus negatived; new clause inserted.

Clauses 6 to 17 passed.

Clause 18.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Game–1]—

Page 7, line 1 [clause 18, heading]—Delete 'section 21A' and substitute 'sections 21AA and 21A'

Amendment No 2 [Game–1]—

Page 7, after line 2—Before inserted section 21A insert:

21AA—Advice in relation to a declaration

(1) If a declaration is made, or the period of a declaration is extended, by the State Co-ordinator or the Governor under this Division, the Minister must, as soon as practicable, provide a report to both Houses of the Parliament summarising the advice that was relied on in making or extending the declaration.

(2) If a declaration made under this Division in relation to an emergency remains in force (whether as made or as extended) for a period longer than 4 weeks, the Minister must establish an advisory committee to provide advice to the State Co-ordinator in relation to the emergency.

(3) An advisory committee established under subsection (2)—

(a) must consist of persons with expertise or relevant experience in matters relevant to the emergency; and

(b) must include persons who are not State public servants.

Basically, new section 21AA—Advice in relation to a declaration, firstly, provides that if the State Coordinator or minister declares an emergency, the minister must then provide a report to both houses of parliament summarising the advice that was relied on in making or extending the declaration. Secondly, if the declaration goes for longer than four weeks, the minister must establish an advisory committee to provide advice to the State Coordinator in relation to the emergency.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: While we acknowledge the intent of what the honourable member is doing with these amendments, it is my advice that these amendments were not formed from any recommendations that came out of the review. As they were filed last night, we have not had a fulsome time to consider all seven pages of those amendments. Again, I would say, though, that I certainly acknowledge the intent of what those amendments are trying to do here and thank the honourable member for them.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I thank the member for putting forward these amendments but, as has been highlighted by the Hon. Ben Hood, this bill in its foundation is designed to be agile and swift and able to react to dynamic situations, and unfortunately the amendments she is putting forward take away that agility. They provide unnecessary red tape and will slow down the process and how to respond to an emergency. The government will not be supporting any of the honourable member's amendments.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Game–1]—

Page 7, line 21 [clause 18, inserted section 21A(2)(b)]—After '14 days) and' insert ', subject to subsection (2a),'

Amendment No 4 [Game–1]—

Page 7, after line 23 [clause 18, inserted section 21A]—After subsection (2) insert:

(2a) The Governor may not approve a further period under subsection (2)(a) that would have the effect of extending the period of the declared state of alert beyond a total of 6 months unless—

(a) the Minister has provided a report to both Houses of the Parliament in relation to the declared state of alert that details the reasons for the proposed extension; and

(b) each House of the Parliament has had at least 3 sitting days (including the day on which the report was provided) to consider the report; and

(c) neither House of the Parliament has resolved to oppose the extension of the period.

The first amendment refers to the Governor's power to extend the emergency declaration by 14 days, which must be subject to proposed (2a), which states that the Governor may not extend the period of a state of alert beyond a total of six months, unless (a) the minister provides a report to both houses of parliament, giving reasons for the extension, and (b) that each house of parliament sits for at least three days to consider the report, and (c) neither house of the parliament opposes the extension. This allows for an extension of emergency powers, but with parliamentary oversight.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As indicated, we will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 19 to 22 passed.

Clause 23.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Game–1]—

Page 8, line 25 [clause 23, inserted section 24B(1)]—After 'requirements' insert 'and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances'

It refers to the power to require information or documents. It currently states, 'Powers under this section must be exercised in accordance with any prescribed requirements.' I would like to add the additional wording of 'and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances'.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As indicated previously, for the same reasons we will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 24.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Game–1]—

Page 9, lines 40 and 41 [clause 24(4)]—Delete subclause (4) and substitute:

(4) Section 25(1)—delete 'he or she thinks appropriate' and substitute:

are appropriate in the circumstances

This amendment relates to powers of the State Coordinator and authorised officers. It currently states that when an emergency is declared the State Coordinator 'must take', and we want to insert 'actions that are appropriate in the circumstances', so this will delete what he or she thinks is appropriate to provide proportionality to the actions taken by the State Coordinator.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: We will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Game–1]—

Page 10, after line 2—After subclause (5) insert:

(5a) Section 25(2)—delete 'of the opinion that it is' and substitute:

it is reasonably

Again, it currently states at subsection (2) that if the State Coordinator is of the opinion that certain actions are 'necessary', and I would like to replace it with 'it is reasonably necessary' to insert some proportionality into the State Coordinator's actions.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The government will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 25.

The CHAIR: We have amendments Nos 8 and 10 to 13. The Hon. Ms Game, they are amendments for which you needed to secure an instruction to the committee, which we were not able to do, so you cannot actually move those amendments. You can move amendment No. 9 [Game-1] at clause 25.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: I will not be moving that amendment.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (26 to 41), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (18:17): 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