Opposition’s marathon challenge to CHO’s ‘unfettered powers’ in NT parliament

The CHO emergency powers have been extended, so does it change the balance of powers in the NT? HAVE YOUR SAY ON WHO IS MOST POWERFUL

TERRITORIANS have reacted to the news of the CHO being granted an extension to emergency powers.

Public sentiment is divided as to whether it is a good thing, and on who holds the most power in the NT.

“Different Chief no change. An unelected public servant now controls the Territory,” a reader commented.

“However because of the uneducated, we need to increase the CHO’s powers because people can’t be trusted to do the right thing,” another person wrote.

“At least the CHO needs to be qualified in their job, unlike any of the politicians who are trying to scaremonger with their campaign against these laws.”

CHO’s ‘unfettered powers’ extended for two years

In a marathon filibuster, the Opposition attempted to block the government’s extension of the Chief Health Officer’s (CHO) emergency powers in parliament on Thursday.

Labor’s amendment to the Public and Environmental Health Act will extend the CHO’s powers – including the vaccine mandate, ordering lockdowns and lockouts, and isolation requirements — until June 2024

However despite widespread scrutiny the legislation was passed due to a Labor majority late on Thursday evening.

When originally tabled, Health Minister Natasha Fyles — who is now also the new Chief Minister — said it was a necessary amendment as the Territory transitioned from the emergency phase of the pandemic.

NT Chief Health Officer, Dr Hugh Heggie. Picture: Julianne Osborne

However, the Chief Minister was noticeably absent from the parliamentary floor for most of the debate.

THE DEBATE POINTS

After more than five hours of parliamentary debate every person on the crossbench, including all the independents, had opposed the bill.

The opposition leader Lia Finocchiaro accused the government of not supporting its own bill.

“Surely one of you would stand up and say so but clearly no one is willing too…” she said.

“It is toxic (legislation) … overstepping the bounds of what legislation is supposed to do.”

Finally, in response to the opposition Ms Fyles stood to support the legislation.

“It is clear the CLP now just think we can let it rip, with no emergency orders in place. In the last 7 days…44 people have died (from Covid in Australia),” she said.

“We will not let it rip. We will not undo the work we have done over the two years.”

Ms Fyles said the government was seeking extensions of powers because it needed the powers to “protect vulnerable people”.

“We need the ability to ensure people to isolate. We need to ensure people who have a legitimate reason to leave the house while infected to wear a mask,” she said.

“We no longer have closed borders. We no longer have 14 days quarantine. We no longer have lock downs….but the disease is still here, it will have a long tail.”

Police Minister Nicole Manison described the legislation as “reasonable and proportionate”.

“We have had our peak (of the Covid pandemic) and we do believe we are coming out of it ... our health system is coping and we are returning to normal,” she said.

“But if there is one thing Covid has proven, it is unpredictable.”

The ammendments were passed due to Labor’s majority government.

INTIAL:

LAWS to extend the NT’s chief health officer (CHO) powers for a further two years are facing heavy scrutiny by the CLP and several independents in the NT parliament.

Labor’s amendment to the Public and Environmental Health act aims to extend the CHO’s powers – including the vaccine mandate, ordering lockdowns and lockouts, and isolation requirements — until June 2024

When originally tabled, Health Minister Natasha Fyles — who is now also the new Chief Minister — said it was a necessary amendment as the Territory transitioned from the emergency phase of the pandemic.

On Thursday, the Country Liberal Party’s justice spokesman Steve Edgington said the bill provided the CHO with unprecedented powers and provided no checks and balances.

“The very words of the bill are dictatorship; they are Alice in Wonderland. It erodes the already non-existent transparency of the CHO powers,” he said.

“Covid is endemic and the rest of the world has moved on. This is not about health this is about power … unfettered power.”

Independent MLA Kezia Purick said the bill eroded democratic rights including the freedom of movement and freedom of assembly.

“This is an overreach of police type powers and once powers are given it is hard to wind them back … extreme powers demand extreme responsibility.”

The legislation provides sanctions for CHOs to enter a person’s home without a warrant or search someone without cause.

Independent MLAs Robyn Lambley and Yingiya Guyula both voiced concerns about the legislation’s extended powers.

Mr Guyula said just days after Labor revealed it would not support extensions of the NT Intervention the bill potentially disempowers Aboriginal communities.

“This Labor government spoke very strongly about giving power back to Aboriginal people, but in this bill I am very concerned about the level of regard for local decision making or self-determination and for collaboration with Aboriginal authorities,” he said.

As a result Mr Guyula proposed a number of amendments to ensure Aboriginal leaders could lead their Covid response.