Page 1704 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 7 June 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
declaration or extension and take into account any advice given, and within seven days after notification of the COVID-19 management declaration, give public notice of any advice provided by the Chief Health Officer. These same requirements apply to a ministerial or executive direction made under the COVID-19 management declaration.
While a COVID-19 is in force, the Chief Health Officer will be required to advise the minister on the status of the risk presented by COVID-19. The government will propose an amendment to the bill that requires this advice to be provided every 30 days, rather than every 60 days, as is currently reflected in the bill. These timelines are consistent with the timelines that we have been using to date under the public health emergency in terms of extension of the emergency and advice from the Chief Health Officer. To provide for a greater level of scrutiny, the bill requires that a COVID-19 management declaration will be a disallowable instrument to ensure the Legislative Assembly is able to consider the merits of such a declaration. This gives the community confidence that its elected officials are empowered to consider whether the making or extension of a COVID-19 management declaration is appropriate, with the ability to move a motion of disallowance.
The bill proposes a new framework for the making of public health directions that give effect to test, trace, isolate and quarantine measures, as well as public health social measures, should they be required. If a COVID-19 management declaration is in force, the executive, the minister, and the Chief Health Officer may make their respective directions for up to 90 days to mitigate the public health risk of COVID-19. If necessary, directions may be extended for a further period of up to 90 days.
The decision to give direction-making powers to the executive and minister recognises the impact of public health social measures and vaccination requirements on the community, and that these restrictions can limit rights under the Human Rights Act. The Chief Health Officer’s advice must be sought and considered in the making of any direction. The bill requires ministerial and Chief Health Officer directions to be notifiable instruments. However, the ministerial and Chief Health Officer directions would also be subject to review by the relevant Assembly standing committee to report on any human rights issues which may arise. This is a further important safeguard which will enhance oversight of decision-making. It promotes accountability and provides an opportunity for the committee to draw any issues to the Assembly’s attention and for consideration.
It is important to note that the Chief Health Officer’s power to make actions in relation to normal public health hazards under the Public Health Act 1997 does not require scrutiny and oversight by the ACT Legislative Assembly—a pertinent example being the Chief Health Officer’s ability to issue directions on a range of matters under section 113 of the act, including for confinement of an individual. The Chief Health Officer direction under the bill is aimed at dealing with a public health risk associated with a person who has been diagnosed with COVID-19 or is at significant risk of becoming a diagnosed person.
The impact of any disallowance by resolution by the Assembly on a Chief Health Officer direction would effectively prevent the Chief Health Officer from making any
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video