Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 13 August 2020] p5036b-5052a Ms Libby Mettam; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr Zak Kirkup; Dr David Honey; Mr Shane Love; Mr John Quigley; Mr Roger Cook; Mr Dave Kelly; Mr Bill Marmion COVID-19 RESPONSE AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY OMNIBUS BILL 2020 Second Reading Resumed from 11 August. MS L. METTAM (Vasse) [8.02 pm]: As the shadow Minister for Transport, I would like to make a brief contribution to this debate. I acknowledge our support for the bill. It is important that business continues to operate and government continues to govern as much as practicable during this period. Importantly, we support the measures provided under the bill to support agency operations. Seventy-five acts and 11 agencies will be impacted by this bill. For example, there is the challenge relating to the ability of key decision-makers to meet because legislation dictates that they should meet in public or in person. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, if you want to have a discussion, please take it off the floor. Ms L. METTAM: There are also the challenges that may be faced when documents cannot be filed because there is a statutory requirement that they be filed in person, approvals and permits cannot be renewed electronically, fees cannot be waived, and courts cannot be in session. Western Australia is following suit from other states and the commonwealth. I understand that the Northern Territory is the only other jurisdiction not to have similar legislation. The Liberal opposition agrees that we need to ensure that these services continue. This bill deals with the ability of the CEO or chief employees to reduce, waive or refund fees and charges in the transport area. This relates to specific acts, including the Public Transport Authority Act 2003, Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008, Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008, Road Traffic (Vehicles) Act 2012, and Road Traffic (Vehicles) (Taxing) Act 2008; and to the validation of fees, which is outlined in the Government Railways Act and the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act. An important element is outlined in part 2, division 4, “Presence and dealing with documents by audiovisual communication”. From a transport perspective, this relates specifically to the Public Transport Authority Act 2003. It provides for the presence of another person executing documents utilising an audiovisual tool—something that we have become increasingly used to utilising since March this year. Under division 2, the decision-maker can set new expiry dates for the authorisation of drivers’ licences, learners’ permits and vehicle licences. Similarly, the opposition supports the other clauses in the bill. I understand that the bill provides for a time line and these extensions will cease in December this year. Throughout this period, the Liberal opposition has been very supportive of the measures that have enabled the government to continue to govern during this extraordinary period and that have allowed businesses to operate as normally as possible for the benefit of Western Australians in respect of the restrictions that may continue. MS R. SAFFIOTI (West Swan — Minister for Planning) [8.06 pm] — in reply: I thank members opposite for their contributions on the COVID-19 Response and Economic Recovery Omnibus Bill 2020. They raised a number of issues during the second reading debate, so I will try to address as many as possible. One of the questions was why am I handling the bill, and I am asking myself the same question! The bill spans many agencies, portfolios and issues. One of the reasons we wanted to deal with it in this way is to consolidate all the issues in one bill and in one parliamentary debate. For efficiency reasons, we decided to put them in an omnibus bill. It started with planning considerations, but then we worked across government and realised that many agencies have similar or comparable issues, and that is why we thought we would put it all together in an omnibus bill. Because I started it and also because of the parliamentary workload of the Attorney General in particular, it was seen that I should carry it through. Of course, during the consideration in detail stage, my ministerial colleagues—those who are still here tonight!—will assist me, along with their advisers. Advisers from all the relevant agencies are available to answer questions. The need for and the timing of the bill has also been questioned. Basically, as we have outlined, many other states and the commonwealth have passed similar bills. Our parliamentary agenda has been very full and it took considerable work by all the agencies involved. I thank the whole-of-government working group, which worked very well to identify all the issues and, of course, Parliamentary Counsel, who facilitated the drafting of this explanation. I will address some of the issues raised. The provision for Executive Council meetings to be held by remote communications protects the Governor from exposure to COVID-19 while ensuring that the critical role of the operation of government can continue. As we know, particularly on nights like this, a healthy Governor is very important to be able to receive our bills and give them royal assent. The issue of various provisions validating a range of decisions was raised. On the matter of the validation of meetings, the bill puts beyond doubt the validity of the process by which meetings are held. It does not validate the merits of those decisions, it is just that a decision made by the process set out in the bill is valid. [1] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 13 August 2020] p5036b-5052a Ms Libby Mettam; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr Zak Kirkup; Dr David Honey; Mr Shane Love; Mr John Quigley; Mr Roger Cook; Mr Dave Kelly; Mr Bill Marmion On 31 March 2020, the government announced the range of fees that would be varied or waived. This bill requires only the facilitation of a small percentage of those when there is no specific power in the current legislation to do so. Finally, members raised the proposed temporary modifications to the Mental Health Act 2014. These amendments are limited solely to resolving a conflict between the Mental Health Infection Control Directions and the act. The directions provide for a number of infection control options to be used by practitioners and psychiatrists who conduct assessments or examinations, with audiovisual being only one medium of doing so. These infection control measures are required only when there may be a risk of exposure that is set out in the directions, such as when a patient has COVID-19 or has recently returned from overseas. Without these amendments, a person in those circumstances may not receive the treatment that they need when they need it, potentially increasing the risk to themselves and others. I am sure that this provision will be the subject of further discussion. I again thank members for their contributions. This is very much a COVID-19 bill. Hopefully, in my response I have addressed the main concerns that were raised. I commend the bill to the house. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Leave denied to proceed forthwith to third reading. Point of Order Mr Z.R.F. KIRKUP: Given the complexity of the bill, and the different shadow ministers required, could I request a slight delay so that we can make sure that we can cover the right areas? I suspect that we would get this done at a more expeditious pace if we did that. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Shall we break for 10 minutes? Is that okay? Mr Z.R.F. KIRKUP: We can continue. That is fine. Mr R.S. LOVE: Sorry, but I did not hear what the member for Dawesville said. Mr Z.R.F. KIRKUP: We have to deal with this bill in batches and the minister has to bring her advisers in in groups, according to the theme, I imagine, of the clauses. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Can I respond? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Thank you. We have just had further confirmation from the clerks that we cannot deal with these clauses in batches, as we were expecting. I think it would be reasonable to identify the areas on which members want to ask questions and I will make sure that I have the relevant ministers and advisers ready to go. I think that is why a five-minute break may help. Mr R.S. LOVE: It might take more than five minutes if the minister wants us to advise her on every clause that we want someone to talk to. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Tell us which groups the member is very interested in. Mr R.S. LOVE: We will have to go through it in the normal way. I do not understand what has been asked. I am willing to be cooperative, but it was a flawed process that the government brought into the house. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: It is not a flawed process. Mr R.S. LOVE: It is a very flawed process. It does not conform to the standing orders. We are trying to work through it, but I want an understanding of what is happening now and we need time to consider it. Five minutes is not very much time to go through a bill to decide which clauses we want to talk on. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Okay. We will keep going. Mr R.S. LOVE: We could have a break for 10 minutes to give us time to go through it. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: We will continue. I thought we had a good understanding. I was trying to be helpful to provide a break, which I was not actually required to do, so that members could sit down and work through and identify the areas they wanted to speak on so that we could do this in a smooth manner.