Page 1772 - Week 06 - Thursday, 30 July 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.12): I note that the cheat sheet that I get all the time, which I actually read this time, says, “Mrs Dunne will resume the debate and the time limit is 20 minutes.” Here I go! The opposition will support the Public Health Amendment Bill 2020 (No 2). I am sure the minister did not speak for 20 minutes on the way in. I thank the Minister for Health for giving me a heads-up on the bill before it was introduced last week. This bill simply establishes that the ACT government can charge a fee to returning travellers having to undergo mandatory quarantining in a place other than their own home during the COVID-19 health emergency.
I think we are far enough down the track of this pandemic for some travellers to know what will be expected of them when they return home, hopefully, and we are far enough along the track for returning travellers no longer to expect the government to foot the bill for their quarantine. They have had plenty of opportunity until now.
The minister assures us that the bill is consistent with national policy agreed by national cabinet, as well as legislation introduced in other jurisdictions, and I have evidence that that is the case. It would establish that the minister has the power to set quarantine fees by disallowable instrument. Importantly, this bill also requires the minister to consider the financial situation of anyone under mandatory quarantine who asks for a payment plan or a deferral or a waiver of fees.
In considering this bill I asked my office to seek clarification on the quantum of fees being proposed, because the explanatory statement talks about the fees being based on a cost-recovery strategy, and I thank the minister’s chief of staff for providing that clarification. If this were literally the case, the cost would vary from person to person and this would create an administrative nightmare which would necessitate the issuing of a disallowable instrument for each case. Where we ended up is that we will have a set fee, the same for everyone, established by a disallowable instrument. I am advised that this fee is consistent with the other jurisdictions, particularly New South Wales, and is informed by the ACT’s experience so far. I note that the notifiable invoices have a substantial bill for us already racked up for quarantining in the ACT.
I understand that it does not necessarily recover all the costs incurred by the ACT government. It will recover much of the cost of accommodation and food but not necessarily other costs, such as transport and security. I have asked the minister to clarify some of this detail in her closing statement. Having said that, the essence of the bill makes sense. It makes it clear for everyone that the taxpayer should no longer be footing the bill for all the costs of mandatory quarantining arrangement. It makes it clear that returning travellers must take financial responsibility for at least some of those costs but it also builds in some flexibility for those returning travellers who may face financial hardship as a result of being quarantined somewhere other than in their own home.
This bill reinforces the dictum that we are all in this together. It reinforces the notion that if we work together we can beat this pandemic.
In closing, I take the opportunity, once again, to thank the minister for the regular briefings I have been receiving, and the opposition has been receiving, throughout the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video