Page 1705 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 7 June 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
determination of the same substance for a period of six months, in accordance with section 67 of the Legislation Act 2001, unless the Assembly reconvened to overturn that decision. Such a disallowance could have the effect of impeding the Chief Health Officer’s ability to manage a public health risk presented by COVID-19, which would significantly undermine the purpose of the bill. Similarly, it would be problematic if a ministerial direction were to be subject to disallowance, potentially affecting the ability of the minister in consultation with the Chief Minister, Chief Health Officer and Human Rights Commissioner to act quickly in implementing low-level restrictions, such as the use of face masks and the regulation of gatherings.
The disallowance of a ministerial direction has the very real potential to impede an effective public health response which seeks to mitigate the public health risk presented by COVID-19 and, therein, the potential for an escalation to a public health emergency. The Chief Health Officer and ministerial directions will be made with reference to expert health advice, including that of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee. The government is of the firm view that our public health response must be guided by the latest public health advice, not politics. Having said that, the bill does require vaccination directions made by the executive to be disallowance instruments. This provides an increased level of parliamentary scrutiny in line with COVID-19 management declarations.
The government is of the view that this tiered approach to the scrutiny of the exercise of powers under the bill, is the right approach, recognising the significant human rights implications associated with vaccination mandates. From these comments, it is probably clear that the government will not be supporting the opposition amendments to make ministerial and Chief Health Officer directions disallowable. All directions made under a COVID-19 management declaration must be based on clear public health advice from the Chief Health Officer, to ensure any restrictions imposed on the community are justified and proportionate to the level of risk being managed in the ACT. The bill already includes a range of safeguards to ensure such directions are proportionate to the risk of COVID-19 and limit human rights to the least extent possible, but our experience is that these measures may need to be implemented and changed on short notice.
The bill will require any vaccination direction made by the executive to be based on advice from the Chief Health Officer, as well. A vaccination direction may only be in force if the executive is satisfied that it is necessary to prevent or alleviate the risk presented by COVID-19. The government is committed to continuing the carefully targeted approach to vaccinate directions noting the impact these directions can have on vulnerable people and those attending such settings. As I have noted, a vaccination direction would be a disallowable instrument, noting the significant impact such a declaration would have on rights under the Human Rights Act.
Following consideration of the committee inquiry report on the bill and views expressed by the Human Rights Commissioner, the government will move an amendment to allow a person to apply for an internal review in relation to a decision to refuse a vaccination exemption or grant an exemption subject to conditions on the grounds stated in a vaccination direction. However, given the potential for significant
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video