Page 1710 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 7 June 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
be supporting my amendments, can I say on the record that that is incredibly disappointing, because the measures that I have introduced through my amendments are designed to provide the right balance between decisions that need to be made—decisions that have a very wide-ranging encroachment on individual freedoms and rights—and the ongoing challenges that we face as a community in managing and dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic.
These are very reasonable measures that I have put forward to ensure that there is a robust accountability and oversight mechanism. It is extremely disappointing—but perhaps, given everything that has been going on in the last couple of months, not surprising—that Labor and the Greens have said publicly that they are not going to support my amendments. That is very disappointing indeed for the entire Canberra community.
MS STEPHEN-SMITH (Kurrajong—Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Minister for Families and Community Services and Minister for Health) (11.35): I wish to speak briefly on Ms Lee’s amendment No 3, which, as she said, would remove the capacity for the Chief Health Officer to make a direction in relation to a particular person. We did consider whether this would be an appropriate amendment and, in consultation with the Human Rights Commission, decided not to make this amendment but instead to make an amendment where, if the Chief Health Officer made a direction in relation to an individual person, that direction would be provided to the Public Advocate to ensure specific oversight of that individual direction.
This reflects the fact that the Chief Health Officer already has the capacity under the Public Health Act to make directions in relation to individuals where there is a specific risk associated with that. As noted in the government response to the Standing Committee on Health and Community Wellbeing inquiry into the bill, the government is of the view that the Chief Health Officer’s ability to issue a direction to an individual person is appropriate, given the application of relevant protections and safeguards.
The Human Rights Commission, in its submission to the Standing Committee on Health and Community Wellbeing inquiry into the bill, acknowledged that safeguards have been included in the bill in relation to a Chief Health Officer direction to a particular person, including that the person must be given the direction in writing and that a direction issued to a particular person involving segregation or isolation is subject to internal and external review rights.
The Human Rights Commission made a submission which stated that “real-time oversight and monitoring are required to protect the human rights of vulnerable individuals who are subject to an individual direction”, and that is exactly what the government’s amendment No 5, which has been circulated, does. It requires the Chief Health Officer, as I said, to notify the Public Advocate of any direction issued to an individual person. This has also been introduced in response to recommendation 8 of the Standing Committee on Health and Community Wellbeing inquiry into the bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video