Page 1249 - Week 05 - Thursday, 4 June 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
is not as advanced as the ACT on community sport matters. Although this is not a race, there are many areas of society and the economy where the ACT has moved ahead of New South Wales—all of which are conveniently overlooked by Mr Coe because his only point of reference, apparently, is pubs and clubs, as if they are the only things in society and as if they are the only things by which you would measure your response in terms of easing restrictions.
How is it that New South Wales would not allow even Mrs Jones’s extended family to go and visit, if she were to visit somewhere in New South Wales? She has a family larger than five; you cannot do that in New South Wales still. It is the same with Mrs Dunne or, indeed, anyone who has a large family: a maximum of five in New South Wales. You can all go down to the pub and play the pokies—that is fine—but in New South Wales you cannot visit another person’s home. You could not go and visit your mum or your grandparents. How is that? How did New South Wales get to that position? Of course, jurisdictions are sovereign and they can make their own determinations, but let us be clear here: it is New South Wales that has deviated from the agreed national approach for one industry sector. Why? Why did they do that, I wonder? I think we know. Those industry associations have been very clear about their lobbying and their efforts—a shift of the New South Wales government on that position.
In New South Wales the health minister writes the public health directions. Under ACT law that we passed in this place, it is our Chief Health Officer. So we rely on expert advice and we will not be bought off or lobbied to amend public health directions. It is not how it works in the ACT; nor should it ever work like that. It just should not. I am confident that the overwhelming majority of Canberrans would agree that it should not be which industries lobby harder that would influence public health directions. Seriously, it is an appalling suggestion that it is lobbying that leads to a change in public health directions. That is appalling.
Mr Coe’s motion contains numerous factual errors. He might not have paid attention, but students are still not back at school in Victoria and Tasmania. There is one big error immediately—
Mr Coe: And some colleges in the ACT, you will find, as well.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Coe!
MR BARR: The ACT was not the last jurisdiction to implement economic support measures. Again, that is another factual error in Mr Coe’s presentation.
Mr Coe: What about Dickson College?
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Coe, I am going to warn you next time.
MR BARR: The ACT’s recovery plan, in terms of both our public health response and our economic response, is informed by sound public health advice and sound economic advice. We continue to provide clear and up-to-date information to the community through regular media briefings, through online resources, through
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video