CORONAVIRUS — STATE OF EMERGENCY
253. Dr D.J. HONEY to the Premier:
I
refer to the Premier's announcement today to bring on urgent
legislation to extend temporary provisions under the Emergency Management Act and comments from Western
Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, Lorraine Finlay, who said, ''The longer the situation goes
on, the harder it is to justify the continuation of emergency measures''—a sentiment backed in by yesterday's
Auditor General's report. How does the Premier expect to attract critical
workers, tourists and business investment to our state when
he is forecasting another six months of these extraordinary controls?
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
The SPEAKER: Minister for
Finance, the question is to the Premier, not you.
Mr M.
McGOWAN replied:
The reason the government is doing
this is to allow us to keep in place measures that will save lives; that is
what it is about. We will not keep the measures in place for any longer than we
need to but, without these laws, which we have rolled over four times now, we
would not have the capacity to require people to remain at home for seven days
when they are COVID-positive, to wear a mask when they go out if they are a close
contact of someone who is COVID-positive, to require daily rapid antigen testing
for people who are close contacts, for restrictions on entry into Aboriginal
communities, for restrictions on cruise ships coming into Perth, and for mask
wearing in hospitals, aged care and disability centres. All these rules we have
in place require legislative backing. These laws we are bringing in provide the
legislative backing behind those rules. If we do not do what we are doing,
people will die. I do not want people who are vulnerable, particularly in
hospitals, aged care and disability care, to die or get very unwell. That is
what these laws are about.
What I have found over the course of
the last two years is that every time we try to do something to save lives,
save jobs and save people's health, the Liberal and National Parties
oppose us. That is what happens. Some of the commentary out there by people
external to Parliament is frankly wrong. It is just wrong. We will not keep
these rules in place for longer than we need to but, if we get rid of them, we
will have adverse health outcomes and I do not want to see that. Members
opposite can shake their heads and come up with all these models; I have people
asking me, ''Why didn't you legislate for each of these?''
We would have to have legislation for mask wearing in hospitals, another bill
to legislate for mask wearing in aged-care settings, another bill for
legislation to provide daily rapid antigen
testing for those people who are close contacts and we would need more
legislation around cruise ships coming in. The existing laws allow for
directions to be published that are nimble, quick and efficient to deal with
circumstances as they come along. The opposition's model would require
the Parliament to be on standby every day,
just in case we have to come in with urgent laws every day for the next six
months. It is just a preposterous suggestion. It is a preposterous
suggestion and it does not reflect the reality of dealing with COVID. What do
members expect from the political party—the Liberal Party—that
supports Clive Palmer?