Hon Peter Collier questions the Leader of the House regarding a perceived contradiction between her statement and the Premier's statement on border restrictions related to COVID-19 community spread. The Leader of the House clarifies the difference in terminology used.

AnsweredQoN 1016Legislative Council
Asked
24 September 2020
Portfolio
Leader of the House representing the Premier

QuestionView source ↗

CORONAVIRUS —
INTERSTATE BORDER RESTRICTIONS
1016. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Leader of the House
representing the Premier:
I
refer the Leader of the House to her response to question without notice 995
asked on Wednesday, 23 September 2020 , when she stated —
The Premier has never stated that either
of these parameters are a requirement of the Western Australian hard borders
being opened.
I also refer to the Premier's
comment on 7.30 on Wednesday, 16 September 2020, when he stated —
� what we've said and this is
the national approach is that if they get to no community spread in the east
for 28 days, well, obviously then we can look towards the border being removed
but until that point in time the health advice we currently have is the border
can't come down.
How does the Leader of the House
reconcile the apparent contradiction between her answer to question without
notice 995 and the comments that the Premier made on 7.30 on Wednesday,
16 September 2020?

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the honourable member for
some notice of the question.
There is no contradiction. The
Premier's comment was specifically 28 days with ''no community
spread''. Question without notice 975 referenced 28 days with no new
cases and question without notice 995 referred to 28 days with no cases. These
are all very different things. By way of example, in Western Australia on
Tuesday, 22 September, we had three new cases, six cases and zero cases of
community spread.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more