Mrs Rattray-Wagner - Been reading my mail.

Mr DEAN - In actual fact, I can refer to some figures that were given to me and those figures are current, as I understand it, to 30 September 2005. In the north of the State, on waiting lists for oral health there are currently 3 776 people. In the south of the State we have 2 752 on the list. In the north-west, 4 328 - quite a staggering number when one looks at the location. I wonder how many dentists and dental surgeons we have in the north-west and I think that is an indication that we do not have too many. The total number of people currently in this State wanting oral support is 10 856.

Ms Forrest - How long have they been waiting? Up to four years.

Mr DEAN - I do not have the figures as to how long they have been on that waiting list but that waiting list is extremely long. We can go a bit further than that and when we come to those waiting for dentures in the north of the State there are 136; in the south, 218; in the north-west, 105; a total of 459 people. One can imagine that they are out there trying to eat their food without any teeth, and that would not be a good sight. I do not treat that matter lightly because it is of concern.
What is the likely outcome of further regulation of the industry? I am concentrating on dentists because on my information there are 320 X-ray licences in the State, approximately 160 are situated in dental premises, which is about 50 per cent of them. A huge number of those machines, as I understand it, are within dental surgeries and dental premises.
I am further told that in two cases in the north of the State, the only after-hours services in the north who also provide a service to the Royal Flying Doctors to Flinders Island will, as I said at the beginning of my second reading speech, seriously consider withdrawing that service should this bill go through in its current form.
That is a huge concern. They say that the after-hours service that they provide to Flinders Island is uneconomical but it services a large proportion of the island, a service partially provided by the Government only. Currently while not viable, they provide it as a service to that area, to that region. I am told also that the Government do not provide an after-hours service in the north and I am also told that if they did so it would be at enormous cost.
So we have these two private dentists currently providing this service to the north of the State where they say it is not economically viable for them they provide it.

Ms Thorp - Why?

Mr DEAN - I do not know. I am told that the increased costs this bill will impose on them will make the after-hours services even less attractive. If the after-hours services close in the north, will the Government pick it up? That is the question that I ask and the Leader may well be able to answer that hypothetical question because I am told that it is a real possibility.
These dentists and dental surgeons are caring people. They care about people but at the same time, as they say and have said to me, financially they must have an income that will allow them to provide a service. Should we not be making it easier for them, not regulating them more, not unnecessarily increasing the service charges? Other increasing consumable charges will increase those things for them without further regulation, without further licensing of instruments and machines that they are required to use within their surgeries.
Over-regulation does cause further costs and I just wonder in this situation whether or not we have got it right in this bill. We know very well that if the costs for these dentists and the dental surgeons are increased, and they are going to be increased as a result of this, and that is to support as I understand it in the main, a board and the administration of the bill, then at the end of the day I suspect that the patients will pay for it in one way or another.
There is a dearth of dentists out there. I would have thought that the Government would have been working closely in that area to ensure that we are making it easier, more attractive to have people working in that area. It causes me some concern. I wonder and I pose the question whether we have it right in this instance and are we helping that profession provide the number of people that we want in that organisation? Currently we have difficulties and currently we have problems.

Clause 65 -
(Power to search person)
Mr DEAN - I am seeking some clarification and direction here. I note that authorised officers under this act do not include police officers. I think I am right in that. It is fairly wide. Clause 65 subclause (2) gives the authority to authorised officers where they reasonably believe that a person has in his or her possession a radiation source to search that person and they can do it without warrant and with such assistance as the officer considers appropriate. When you say with the assistance that they deem necessary, that identifies to me that they have the ability to search a person who is not cooperating and that may well imply also that they can use reasonable force in all of the circumstances to do that. I do not see in this clause anywhere where it says that reasonable force can be used by these people to do that. I am wondering whether that is an oversight or whether it is deliberately done this way. Perhaps it is somewhere else in the act and I have missed it.

Sitting suspended from 4 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.

Mr AIRD - Mr Chairman, basically we were discussing the search powers and that the intent behind clause 65 would be that these powers would be used in exceptional circumstances and that should a search be required, under clause 53 it enables the Director of Public Health to appoint, and it could be a police officer appointed. Basically it would be at the behest of the Director of Public Health that that appointment would be made. To be quite frank, when I say 'exceptional', when you think about it, it would have to be exceptional to use these powers under this act that really relate to health-related issues. Obviously there are other aspects in terms of policing and legislation in terms of dangerous goods in regard to a threat to the community. Depending on the nature of the substance involved there would be other powers to -

Ms Forrest - New terrorism laws, for example.

Mr AIRD - Yes. There could be something that we would have to do. This would have to be considered in that context, unfortunately. This is a public health issue.

Mr DEAN - I hear where the Leader is coming from, but whenever police use their powers to use reasonable force, that is exceptional as well, it is not the norm. The way this clause is written, it implies very clearly to me that force could be used because it says they can search a person without a warrant. So they can search a person, and then it goes further. It says they can do that with the assistance that they believe is necessary in all of the circumstances. So that implies that some force can be used to do it, and because it does not identify with that, I could see this clause probably being a clause that would leave itself wide open to action being taken against a person carrying out a search in such circumstances. I know it may never be used, but the fact that it is written in there is a clear indication to me that it could be seen that it may need to be used, otherwise it would not be in here, it would not be in the bill.
There is a belief that it might be used sometime, so therefore it ought to go that one step further, in my view, and very clearly identify there that any reasonable force could be used - because it is the same with whatever assistance they need. They can get three or four other people to help them hold a person down and do the search. Therefore, in my view, it just needs to go that one step further, and I believe it is not credible in the way it is written.

Mr AIRD - Mr Chairman, subclause (3) reads:
'For the purposes of conducting a search under subsection (2), the authorised officer may do one or more of the following:
(a) detain the person;
(b) require the person to accompany the officer to a place which the officer considers appropriate for conducting the search.'
If you wanted to detain a person, stop him from running away, you would detain him; there would be some action you would have to undertake to detain him. We will get a further explanation of that. I am not objecting to what you are proposing, I just do not know if it is necessary. We will seek further clarification and then come back and explain it. I might get advice that yes, we can proceed in a way and we will propose an amendment in your name.

Mrs Smith - If I might - through you, Mr Chairman - how would it compare with, say, a Parks and Wildlife officer in a national park? What power does he have to detain a person and say, 'Come to the office with me'? It might be interesting to compare sections in both acts.

Mr AIRD - One of the things I am asking is to find similar provisions in other legislation. Let us face it, though, this is a very high-risk area and, with all due respect to those working in Parks, this substance is very dangerous and if put to the wrong purposes -

Mr Dean - It is the protection of the people I am concerned about.

Mr AIRD - I understand what you are trying to do. I think it is implicit here but we will get advice.
Mr Chairman, I move -
That clause 65 be postponed.

Clause 65 postponed.