COVID-19 Disease Emergency (Misc Provisions) Bill (No 2) 2020

[9.32 p.m.]

Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Mr President, I acknowledge the incredible efforts and resilience of the Tasmanian community during this time. My thoughts are particularly with those in the north-west who are facing the biggest challenge. Many, many thanks to colleagues in those regions who are bearing the brunt of supporting those communities at this time.

My heartfelt thanks go out to the health workers and the other essential workers who are at the forefront of our response and management of this situation. My deepest sympathies to those families who have lost family members to this disease.

I particularly acknowledge the good work of the Government under the leadership of the Premier and the way in which they have been undertaking what has needed to be done in this situation.

I am going to speak briefly on this bill. I know I say that all the time. This time I will try to make it true. I will talk briefly about some things not touched on yet and then there will be matters I will pick up on in the Committee stage.

 Our return to parliamentary sitting is important, not just to deal with bills relating to managing this crisis, but to fulfil the role we have of appropriate scrutiny. Unfortunately, while we have returned to parliament, it is with such a constrained sitting time that we are not able to fully undertake our scrutiny role or, particularly within this minimal version, our broader parliamentary role.

Tasmanians want their elected representatives to do their job; a parliamentary sitting with all the details, and particularly the role of scrutiny, requires more than just one day here, one day there. More sitting time for parliament is required over coming weeks and months to ensure accountability and scrutiny are appropriately applied.

The value of scheduling more time has been demonstrated quite amply here today. Today is a cautionary tale as to what happens when you do not schedule enough sitting time to deal with an important bill that certainly could have been dealt with quite differently across a two-day period and would have made quite a difference to this place. In particular, our key aim in this one sitting day is to consider one piece of government legislation and to have question time.

This piece of legislation is an important bill and deserves our most effective attention, yet we received it approximately 36 hours ago.

Yes, we have received briefings, but under rushed circumstances, and we have not been given an opportunity to readily seek further input, advice or consultation to best consider the features of this bill. This is especially concerning in relation to aspects of the bill that apply beyond the emergency period. The member for Mersey spoke about the fact the title of this bill really focuses us on it being about the emergency period and not beyond, and yet we are asked to contemplate some aspects that do extend beyond that.

The passage of this bill has been far from ideal to an extent I do not believe was necessary and more parliamentary time could and should have been allocated for it.

Last month when the first COVID-19 act was passed, it was with understandable, if still regrettable, haste. This month, I do not believe a claim for forbearance in relation to haste can be claimed by this Government on this bill; we simply should have been scheduled more time to deal with it.

Mr President, last month when we passed the first COVID-19 emergency act, there was much discussion in the other place and here about the fact that scrutiny would be undertaken by the Subordinate Legislation Committee and comfort was drawn and expressed in each Chamber that such scrutiny would balance to some extent the rushed passage of that bill which did not allow for detailed scrutiny by the members of parliament.

As it transpired, the scrutiny role of the Subordinate Legislation Committee is actually quite limited.

The COVID-19 emergency act designates the Subordinate Legislation Committee to review notices issued by the State Controller or the executive, and this joint standing committee was the natural choice for such a function; however, it is not through notices under the COVID-19 act that most powers are being exercised over the emergency period so far.

A greater proportion of the powers are being exercised in the form of directions issued by the Director of Public Health under the Public Health Act and directions issued under the Emergency Management Act. These directions are far-reaching and unprecedented. They are rules being made that impinge on our civil liberties and our freedom of movement. They give extraordinary powers to our police force and carry hefty penalties.

In regard to these directions issued under the Public Health Act and the Emergency Management Act during the emergency period, they are not reviewed and scrutinised by the Subordinate Legislation Committee. My view is that they should be, that they fall under the usual role of that committee captured by the broad category of any regulation the Subordinate Legislation Committee is taken to review; however, that is not an argument I intend to prosecute in detail here today.

I take this opportunity to note, however, that until today when we resumed sitting, there has been no opportunity for any form of parliamentary oversight for directions issued across the past more than a month.

It could be argued the return to parliament today and for certain sitting days over coming months provides an avenue for oversight and scrutiny of those directions; however, I regard this as a disingenuous argument realistically in the context of a limited time and focus on substantial new legislation to be considered and passed. In these constrained sittings, there is scant opportunity for parliament to actively scrutinise specific directions in any detail.

Some of those directions may have been the topic of questions put to the Government and answered here and in the other place today, but this is far from comprehensive and could not be considered to be accountable and comprehensive scrutiny of those directions. In fact, the difficulties of parliament as a whole to scrutinise in close detail a delegated legislative instrument such as these directions was the very reason the Subordinate Legislation Committee was established.

Mr President, I further note discussing potential mechanisms for review and scrutiny of these directions and other matters can tend to generate some defensiveness or slightly negative reaction in the people it is being proposed to scrutinise. Proposing appropriate and comprehensive scrutiny does not express an expectation that the powers being exercised are being abused; rather, it acknowledges that all citizens have a right to know those powers are being exercised appropriately.

It is our job as a parliament to provide Tasmanians with that very assurance.

As it stands, I do not believe we can give that assurance to the Tasmanian community. Further to providing such an assurance that powers are being exercised appropriately, review and scrutiny importantly also work to ensure we have the opportunity to have better quality governance and better rules made. Review allows an opportunity to pick up on inconsistencies, to close gaps, to more fully consider unintended consequences and many other things beside.

I think we would all agree that it is hard enough under the best of circumstances to get things totally right the first time. The Government is under enormous pressure right now. The decisions being made and the directions being drafted and put in place are being done at a sprint. I commend and I thank the Government and the public servants who are doing this work under such circumstances.

However, because of these extraordinary circumstances, with such time pressures with decisions being made and governing occurring at full tilt, we should especially consider how best to support good governance and not accept its ready abandonment. Good governance demands appropriate review and scrutiny.

Last month when we passed the first COVID-19 act in a short time period under circumstances of heightened anxiety, an aspect of that bill that received relatively little debate during the constraints of that time was the insertion of a new section 60A into the Emergency Management Act. Section 60A has the effect of suspending the Personal Information Protection Act 2004 during the period of this emergency in particular circumstances.

The reason provided for this suspension was that it would facilitate the exchange of information between state and Commonwealth agencies in relation to the emergency. I believe at this time it was well recognised that this exchange of information would be required in the context of the Health response to this crisis. However, to broadly suspend the act was an action that could have great consequences.

While well intentioned, I believe it was a much broader response than was required and may unnecessarily remove or make unclear certain privacy protections for Tasmanians during this emergency time.

I will talk more about this in the Committee stage when I move an amendment relating to this. I trust members will recognise that the amendment is a prudent reinstatement of privacy protections while still facilitating the actions required to best protect the health of the Tasmanian community.

I will speak to just a couple of aspects of the bill. I am going to talk briefly about the Legislative Council elections just to underline my support for what the bill seeks to achieve. I understand the need to the address matters relating to the timing of the 2020 Legislative Council elections and ensuring they can be held safely in the context of COVID-19. I note those elections may be held at some time through to 31 December 2020 or if at that time it is still not deemed safe to operate polling places, they will be carried over to 2021 and held in May in conjunction with elections scheduled for that time.

However, I wonder whether we may be prompted to contemplate another solution if it becomes apparent that the dangers associated with large gatherings of people extend for a protracted time and risk a delay for those May 2021 scheduled elections. What we are doing today may potentially simply be kicking a problem down the road, so to speak, but with a more comprehensive solution ultimately being required possibly involving amendments to our Constitution Act and Electoral Act which the member for Hobart has alluded to and spoken about already. We will wait to see what transpires on that front.

In the meantime, I support the arrangements made in this bill to ensure that the current members for Rosevears and Huon are able to continue to represent those communities. It would be a disservice to those communities and to the effective and accountable functioning of this place if those members were not able to continue in their roles during this interim period of time.

I have an interest in and questions on a number of other specific aspects of the bill. I am choosing not to speak on those in detail during this contribution in the interests of time, but I will hold those remarks and questions over until we move into the Committee state.