❓ A WA parliamentary question regarding the Premier's stance on a national COVID-19 hotspot plan. The Premier defends the WA border policy, citing legal advice and criticising the opposition's stance and association with Clive Palmer.
AnsweredQoN 752Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
CORONAVIRUS —
HOTSPOT PLAN
752. Mr
P.A. KATSAMBANIS to the Premier:
I refer to the article in The
West Australian of 3 September where he clearly rejected a national hotspot
plan, as was proposed by the Prime Minister at the time.
Does
the Premier still categorically rule out a hotspot plan even if he receives
health advice supporting such an approach?
Mr R.H. Cook interjected.
The SPEAKER : Minister for
Health!
HOTSPOT PLAN
752. Mr
P.A. KATSAMBANIS to the Premier:
I refer to the article in The
West Australian of 3 September where he clearly rejected a national hotspot
plan, as was proposed by the Prime Minister at the time.
Does
the Premier still categorically rule out a hotspot plan even if he receives
health advice supporting such an approach?
Mr R.H. Cook interjected.
The SPEAKER : Minister for
Health!
AnswerView source ↗
I was at the national cabinet
meeting when this matter was discussed and I expressed my opposition to it on
the basis of a few things. I will read what
Justice Rangiah of the Federal Court had to say about hotspots. Justice Rangiah heard the expert evidence and his findings are going to the High Court in our battle
against Clive Palmer, the Liberal Party's
friend. I want to read it out to the member. I know the member for Hillarys
will not listen and I know his supplementary will not be dexterous
enough to reflect the answer that I give, but I will read it to him anyway. I quote
—
� If the border restrictions were replaced by that suite of
measures plus a ''hotspot'' regime, involving either quarantining
or banning persons entering from designated hotspots, they would be less
effective than the border measures in preventing the importation of COVID-19.
That is the finding of the Federal
Court; those suite of measures would be less effective than the current border
measures. That is why we have not agreed. I said that on that day at the
national cabinet meeting and later on that day I note that the Tasmanian
Liberal Premier came out and said something similar to what I had to say as did
the Queensland Labor Premier. As I understand
it, there has not been a resolution of a hotspot model. It was not discussed at the last national cabinet meeting. The
hotspot model that was proposed involved setting up a certain area of a city
and then saying that, within that area, if there are three cases or 10 cases or
whatever it might be—or in a certain town or region of a state, if there
is a certain number of cases within that area—that becomes a hotspot
and people from that area cannot travel. Honestly! That model appears to me to
be just a mess and I said that it was a mess! Look at what has happened in New
South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania—they
have had outbreaks and they are trying to adopt all these different models all
the time. We have had a very clear model: we have a border in place that
protects our state. We have gone about 163 days without any community spread.
By the tenor of the member's
question—I can see he is going to ask that supplementary—he is
trying to pull down a border that has worked. Once again, the Liberal
Party is trying to pull down a border that has worked. The Liberal Party joined with Clive Palmer in the High
Court. The Liberal Party joined with its friend Clive Palmer. If Clive Palmer
had been successful, people in Western Australia would have died. If Clive
Palmer and the Liberal Party had been successful, we would not have the strong
economic outcomes that we have today. If Clive Palmer and the Liberal Party had been successful, we would have
ended up like Melbourne—if those members had had their way. Why do they not give this up? Why do they not
actually show some appreciation of the fact that the people of this
state have the right model. The people of this state have endorsed the right
model for the times and that model has worked. Why do the opposition members
not actually accept that? Why do they not think about some other issues to ask
questions about rather than constantly trying to nitpick in the middle of a pandemic?
meeting when this matter was discussed and I expressed my opposition to it on
the basis of a few things. I will read what
Justice Rangiah of the Federal Court had to say about hotspots. Justice Rangiah heard the expert evidence and his findings are going to the High Court in our battle
against Clive Palmer, the Liberal Party's
friend. I want to read it out to the member. I know the member for Hillarys
will not listen and I know his supplementary will not be dexterous
enough to reflect the answer that I give, but I will read it to him anyway. I quote
—
� If the border restrictions were replaced by that suite of
measures plus a ''hotspot'' regime, involving either quarantining
or banning persons entering from designated hotspots, they would be less
effective than the border measures in preventing the importation of COVID-19.
That is the finding of the Federal
Court; those suite of measures would be less effective than the current border
measures. That is why we have not agreed. I said that on that day at the
national cabinet meeting and later on that day I note that the Tasmanian
Liberal Premier came out and said something similar to what I had to say as did
the Queensland Labor Premier. As I understand
it, there has not been a resolution of a hotspot model. It was not discussed at the last national cabinet meeting. The
hotspot model that was proposed involved setting up a certain area of a city
and then saying that, within that area, if there are three cases or 10 cases or
whatever it might be—or in a certain town or region of a state, if there
is a certain number of cases within that area—that becomes a hotspot
and people from that area cannot travel. Honestly! That model appears to me to
be just a mess and I said that it was a mess! Look at what has happened in New
South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania—they
have had outbreaks and they are trying to adopt all these different models all
the time. We have had a very clear model: we have a border in place that
protects our state. We have gone about 163 days without any community spread.
By the tenor of the member's
question—I can see he is going to ask that supplementary—he is
trying to pull down a border that has worked. Once again, the Liberal
Party is trying to pull down a border that has worked. The Liberal Party joined with Clive Palmer in the High
Court. The Liberal Party joined with its friend Clive Palmer. If Clive Palmer
had been successful, people in Western Australia would have died. If Clive
Palmer and the Liberal Party had been successful, we would not have the strong
economic outcomes that we have today. If Clive Palmer and the Liberal Party had been successful, we would have
ended up like Melbourne—if those members had had their way. Why do they not give this up? Why do they not
actually show some appreciation of the fact that the people of this
state have the right model. The people of this state have endorsed the right
model for the times and that model has worked. Why do the opposition members
not actually accept that? Why do they not think about some other issues to ask
questions about rather than constantly trying to nitpick in the middle of a pandemic?
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.