Page 1392 - Week 05 - Thursday, 18 June 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The explanatory statement to this bill tells us that the ACT government’s work in this area is valued at well over $350 million. That is, of course, if people subscribe to the programs; in some cases they are not subscribing to the programs because they are too complicated. If these programs meet their targets they will be laudable, but they do not help everyone. Even the Chief Minister’s announcement yesterday about rate changes for the next financial year does not help everyone. Some people will end up paying more—as much as four or five per cent more—and there is little or no relief for unit and apartment owners, who have borne the brunt of savage increases over the past several years.
However, my amendment seeks to acknowledge that we are still all in this together. It seeks to remove the barrier built by the government’s bill. It seeks to restore people’s human rights in a human rights jurisdiction. I am speaking of the right to apply for compensation, not necessarily to receive it. The government’s bill limits the ability of anyone, other than an occupier or owner of a property which has been commandeered, to seek any recompense from the government. It removes that right from all people, whether they are directly or indirectly affected. We have seen, for example, the hospitality, sporting and arts sectors struggling through this crisis. There is no avenue for them; they are cut out of any possibility of compensation, and this flies in the face of the Prime Minister’s expression that we are all in this together.
In a briefing earlier this week, the health minister cited the example of her own dry-cleaner as one business that had been severely affected by the crisis. The decline in business had not resulted directly from any particular restrictions to that line of business but had come about because of the huge overall impact, the minister told me. I empathise with the business owner, who has seen a decline of 80 or 90 per cent in business.
The Victorian health emergency provisions provide a way forward in that state. To paraphrase the provisions, a person can apply to the department secretary for compensation if the person considers that there were insufficient grounds for certain actions taken by the Chief Health Officer—and, of course, that would also include inaction by the Chief Health Officer. If the secretary in Victoria decides that there were insufficient grounds, the secretary is able to pay just and reasonable compensation to the applicant. I acknowledge that the government considered this approach but the minister—I alluded to this before—was rolled in cabinet over this. The result is that the ACT Labor-Greens government has slammed the door—
Ms Stephen-Smith: Point of order. I left Mrs Dunne to say that the first time she said it, but I corrected her in my speech. I was not rolled in cabinet. I do not appreciate that reflection on me; I ask her to withdraw it.
Mr Hanson: Not appreciating something is not a point of order.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, I do not need your advice. I suggest that at the end of this debate Ms Stephen Smith makes a personal explanation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video