❓ A WA parliamentary question probes the government's rationale for using both the Emergency Management Act 2005 and the Public Health Act 2016 during the COVID-19 pandemic, questioning perceived deficiencies in the latter and the prolonged state of emergency. The government's response is brief and deflects some questions.
AnsweredQoN 316Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
CORONAVIRUS — STATE OF EMERGENCY — ACTS
316. Hon MARTIN ALDRIDGE to the Leader of the House
representing the Minister for Health:
I refer to directions issued
pursuant to a state of emergency under the Emergency Management Act 2005 and
pursuant to a public health state of emergency under the Public Health Act
2016.
(1) How does the government
determine which act will be utilised to give effect to each direction?
(2) Of the
directions issued pursuant to the Emergency Management Act 2005, which
directions could not lawfully be made under the Public Health Act 2016?
(3) With regard
to the utilisation of both acts concurrently for the purpose of the COVID-19
response, how is the Public Health Act 2016 deficient and therefore requiring
the powers of the Emergency Management Act 2005?
(4) Given that WA
has now been operating in a state of emergency for almost two years, why has
the minister not amended the Public Health Act to address the deficiencies
identified in (3)?
The PRESIDENT :
Leader of the House, are you going to answer that?
316. Hon MARTIN ALDRIDGE to the Leader of the House
representing the Minister for Health:
I refer to directions issued
pursuant to a state of emergency under the Emergency Management Act 2005 and
pursuant to a public health state of emergency under the Public Health Act
2016.
(1) How does the government
determine which act will be utilised to give effect to each direction?
(2) Of the
directions issued pursuant to the Emergency Management Act 2005, which
directions could not lawfully be made under the Public Health Act 2016?
(3) With regard
to the utilisation of both acts concurrently for the purpose of the COVID-19
response, how is the Public Health Act 2016 deficient and therefore requiring
the powers of the Emergency Management Act 2005?
(4) Given that WA
has now been operating in a state of emergency for almost two years, why has
the minister not amended the Public Health Act to address the deficiencies
identified in (3)?
The PRESIDENT :
Leader of the House, are you going to answer that?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for
some notice of the question.
(1) The decision
on which act will be utilised to give a direction is made having regard to
operational and legal considerations.
(2) This question seeks a legal
interpretation or opinion, contrary to standing order 105(1)(b).
(3) I refer to the answer to (1). The decision to use
one act over the other does not mean that the other act is deficient.
(4) Not applicable.
some notice of the question.
(1) The decision
on which act will be utilised to give a direction is made having regard to
operational and legal considerations.
(2) This question seeks a legal
interpretation or opinion, contrary to standing order 105(1)(b).
(3) I refer to the answer to (1). The decision to use
one act over the other does not mean that the other act is deficient.
(4) Not applicable.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.