Page 1696 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 7 June 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The bill provides a much more transparent and rights-protective framework than the legislative provisions which have authorised COVID-19 directions in the emergency phase to date. This includes the requirement that ministerial and Chief Health Officer directions are referred to the relevant Assembly committee responsible for the consideration of legal issues, to provide further scrutiny in relation to human rights compatibility.
These kinds of accountability measures are also put in perspective when compared with the Victorian legislation on the same issue, which confers a range of powers on the executive to operate under delegated legislation, and which is subject to limited parliamentary oversight.
We do need to find a balance here, because the reality of the pandemic, of the public health threat, means that we need to be able to take effective action to keep the community safe, whilst at the same time being mindful of the freedoms and liberties of our community. The ACT community does face ongoing risks and challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Without the appropriate tools to respond and protect the community, we put people at risk, particularly our most vulnerable.
I will quickly touch on some further measures taken in this bill, which are designed to strike a balance regarding upholding community interests and public health while providing safeguards to enhance the protection of individual rights. The bill introduces human rights safeguards by incorporating requirements for a decision-maker to consult with the Human Rights Commission about whether directions are consistent with human rights, to seek the advice of the Chief Health Officer and publish that advice, and to prepare and publish a statement on how each direction is necessary to prevent or alleviate the risk of COVID-19, and how they are consistent with human rights.
A further element is that the directions are time limited to 90 days and must be reviewed by the Chief Health Officer every 30 days to determine whether the direction is still justified. Judicial review options are also available where the applicant has standing.
The bill also gives regard to the fact that there are persons within the ACT community who remain unvaccinated, not by choice but for other reasons beyond their control—for example, due to the vaccine not being available to them due to age, or a health or medical condition, such as allergies or having previously experienced a serious adverse event following vaccination.
The bill recognises the significant way in which such a vaccination direction engages human rights, as detailed in the explanatory statement, by providing that a vaccination direction that may be made by the executive is a disallowable instrument, so that there is a higher degree of scrutiny over such a measure.
As additional human rights safeguards, the bill also provides that the vaccination direction must not prevent or limit a person from being able to obtain an essential good or service, such as groceries and medical treatment; the executive must first be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video