PRIME MINISTER ANTHONY ALBANESE: I do want to begin by briefly mentioning the devastating impact of Hurricane Ian in Florida, and extend my deepest sympathies on behalf of Australia to all of those who have been affected in the Florida Peninsula, the Cayman Islands and Cuba. The images of the destruction and suffering has sent a shock of grief and sympathy right around the world. Australia has stood together with the US in times of natural disaster. And, of course, Australians would well remember those US firefighters who lost their lives during the bushfire crisis here in Australia of 2019-2020. I have indicated to our friends in the United States that Australia remains, as always, prepared to provide any assistance and support that we can at this difficult time. So we stand with the United States as always.
Today, we have had a very successful meeting of the National Cabinet, and I thank the colleagues for the goodwill that they bring to these discussions. One of the things that I have been determined to do as the Prime Minister is to get more national consistency with outcomes, so that the Australian people can have more certainty and less confusion going forward. I thank the Premiers and Chief Ministers for the spirit in which they have undertaken discussions around the Cabinet table today, but also last evening in the lead-up to this meeting as well. We wanted to make sure that we have measures which are proportionate and that are targeted at the most vulnerable. We want to continue to promote vaccinations as being absolutely critical, including people getting booster shots. And we want a policy that promotes resilience and capacity-building, and reduces a reliance on government intervention. We have agreed today that states and territories will end their respective mandatory isolation requirements on 14 October. The pandemic leave disaster payments will end at that time as well, with the exception of people in high-risk settings which need to be given particular support: aged care, health care, disability care, the areas that have been previously identified. Can I thank Professor Kelly for his report to today's meeting and for correspondence that we will circulate to you, the advice that we received.
PROFESSOR PAUL KELLY, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER: Thank you, Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister did ask me for some specific medical advice in relation to this proposal to remove the isolation period as it currently stands. So I provided him with that correspondence and that will be circulated as the Prime Minister has said. I would like to stress that this is a context-specific and timing-specific set of recommendations. It recognises that we are in a very low community transmission phase of the pandemic here in Australia. It does not in any way suggest that the pandemic is finished. We will almost certainly see future peaks of the virus into the future, as we have seen earlier in this year. However, at the moment, we have very low rates of both cases, hospitalisations, intensive care admissions, aged-care outbreaks and various other measures that we have been following very closely in our weekly open report. We also have, at the moment, very high hybrid immunity from previous infection, as well as high vaccination rates, particularly and specifically in those highly vulnerable communities: older people, people in aged care, people living with a disability and the ones that we have talked about many times before. It is a time, now, to consider that we have other things that we can do to protect those most vulnerable people, and that is absolutely our key aim. Isolation itself cannot be seen in isolation. It needs to be seen in the context of that high vaccination rate, high previous infection giving further protection, the availability of treatments, the availability of vaccines, including the new bivalent vaccines and all the measures we have in place to protect vulnerable people close to where they are. It is time to move away from COVID exceptionalism, in my view, and we should be thinking about what we do to protect people from any respiratory disease. It does not mean we have somehow magically changed the infectiousness of this virus. It is still infectious. But in the context that we are in at the moment in Australia, and this is an important epidemiological point: we can't look at isolation by itself. We need to look at those measures and the protection we have, as well as other protections. It is important that we keep an option for a change to these settings in the future, and that is the world that National Cabinet has requested of us to do: to keep vigilance for new variants, for changes in the epidemiological situation in Australia, for signs that we have strain on our health care system, and be prepared to make different decisions at that moment. But for now, as I've stated in the letter, I believe that removing the isolation period at this time is a reasonable course of action from a public health point of view.
JOURNALIST: Doctor Kelly, did this go to the Health Advisory Committee? Was there a consensus, if it did?
KELLY: We haven't specifically discussed this matter. I was asked what this advice yesterday and I provided as the Chief Medical Officer to the Prime Minister.
JOURNALIST: Have you gone to the AHPPC before it went to National Cabinet today? Should we describe today’s decision as a unanimous decision by National Cabinet or is it better to describe it as a consensus decision?
PRIME MINISTER: It was a unanimous decision by the National Cabinet today and had the support of all Premiers and Chief Ministers.
JOURNALIST: Professor Kelly, could you talk us through what impact you think this change would have on cases, hospitalisations, deaths? And you mentioned at the end of your comments about potentially changes to settings in future. Could you see a moment where you would recommend bringing back mandatory isolation, potentially another peak period like next winter?
KELLY: What I can say about the effect of this is that it remains to be seen and we will continue to be looking closely at that. What I can say is that from the peak that we had, and you would remember press conferences at that time, our concern about the healthcare system in particular around the end of July, early August. At that time we had over 1200 aged care facilities with outbreaks, thousands of cases within aged care, hundreds of cases amongst healthcare and aged care workers. As of yesterday we have just over 200 aged care outbreaks, less than 1,000 aged care residents with COVID and 314 staff. Things have changed a lot since that time. That has included in a month where we decreased from seven days to five days, not in aged care but in the broader community. Aged care is a really helpful way of looking at and monitoring the situation going forward because of the close attention we are giving to that particularly vulnerable setting and we will continue to do that.
JOURNALIST: Do you see a moment where you could recommend, as a health recommendation, that you would recommend going back mandatory isolation? Your comments at the start seemed to be emphasising that we are in a low-risk setting, low community transmission setting. If we go back to a high risk or high transmission setting, what would be your advice?
KELLY: We have been tasked to come back with that advice. This comes back to the discussion about AHPPC, they have been very much involved with our charting out of a community protection framework for this next phase, this non-emergency phase of the pandemic response. And other parts of the government have been looking at, and the Health Department more broadly, at a transition approach. So that would fit into that. We will provide that advice in due course.
JOURNALIST: If quarantine requirements were reintroduced in future based on advice, would the pandemic leave payment also be reintroduced at that point?
PRIME MINISTER: What we agreed at previous meetings was that where government was mandating particular requirements, that is that people couldn't get access to their income, then with that mandating comes a responsibility to provide support. But we have agreed today, based upon the advice, that we are moving beyond the emergency settings that were put in place. It isn't sustainable for government to pay people's wages forever. It was always envisaged that these measures were emergency measures that were put in place. What we have done today is take the advice from the Chief Medical Officer, listened to that advice, and therefore, changed the settings so that they are proportionate. I believe that we should always act in a proportionate way and that now is the right time for this to occur, this change. And that got the unanimous agreement of states and territories today.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you have also agreed, I understand, to work further on policy options for patient pathways and reducing pressure on hospitals. I see that that is going to be considered in the context of each jurisdiction's budget. Does that mean hospital funding, you're looking at eight separate deals instead of continuing of the national 50-50 funding agreements?
PRIME MINISTER: Look, we will continue to discuss healthcare as long as the Commonwealth and states exist, frankly. That's just a reality of the system which is there. But one of the things that we have agreed, and we have made this point before, is that it isn't just about a dollar amount. Part of the pressure that's there on emergency departments is that people who should not be going to hospitals but are going because there isn't primary healthcare available, because people in nursing homes don't have access to healthcare, so someone who is an aged care resident who could have been assisted by having a nurse in a nursing home, as identified by the Aged Care Royal Commission, ends up in the emergency department because the health concerns become acute rather than are dealt with in a timely manner. There are people with disabilities who end up in emergency departments and in hospitals as well. We will continue to work on ways in which we can get better health outcomes. From my perspective, it's never been about the dollars. It's been about making sure that we get good health outcomes in the interests of the population, and the first secretaries group and others are continuing to work on that. And we will continue to have more to say in the future, including at the December meeting of the National Cabinet.
JOURNALIST: Premier Palaszczuk, it's been reported in the last hour that you have rescinded your land tax proposal following discussions with colleagues last night. Could you elaborate on that? Are you disappointed you didn't get support?
ANNASTACIA PALASZCZUK, PREMIER OF QUEENSLAND: No. It actually came out of the Treasurers’ meeting. So there were discussions held at that forum and it does rely on the goodwill of other states. And contrary to the public report, Dominic and I get along quite
DOMINIC PERROTTET, PREMIER OF NEW SOUTH WALES: Very well.
PALASZCUK: Even though we win the State of Origin. It does require the goodwill of other states, and if we can't get that additional information, I will put that aside.
JOURNALIST: Can I just first clarify that, in terms of the mandatory isolation, lifting that applies to people in high-risk settings as well? And in terms of lifting the payment, what’s the incentive, then, for a casual worker to stay at home when they are sick if they risk not getting any money if they stay home?
PRIME MINISTER: One of the statements that Professor Kelly has used here today that was used also this morning, was moving away from COVID exceptionalism. The flu has existed, and health issues have existed, for a long period of time and the government hasn't always stepped in to pay people's wages while people have health concerns. It is not sustainable to have in place a system whereby the government steps in permanently. We understand the pressures that are there, it is one of the reasons why my government has focused on reducing the incidence of casual work. The priority from my government is creating permanent work, permanent employment. It's one of the risks that is there with the increased casualisation of the workforce that we have seen.
JOURNALIST: For the Chief Health Officer, you've said the pandemic isn't over and the Health Minister said a similar thing earlier this week. But doesn’t removing these restrictions send a very different message to the Australian public, that maybe it is time to relax and them to make is coming to an end?
KELLY: The crucial point there is that emergency response phase is probably finished at this point in the pandemic. The key thing is that we will see more waves. This virus will be around for many years. But it is time to consider, as the PM has just said, different ways of dealing with it and that should be proportionate to what is happening in front of us. Whatever we are doing needs to be evidence-based, that it is working, and it needs to be equitable. And all of those things are particularly related to protecting people at most risk of severe disease. These are all changes in the way we are dealing with the pandemic and it explains the decisions of today.
JOURNALIST: Did National Cabinet give any consideration to vaccine mandates for those healthcare workers who still have to be vaccinated? Will they be removed as well?
PRIME MINISTER: Vaccine mandates have been in place for a long period of time. In aged care, for example, the flu vaccines, there have been requirements as part of Occupational Health & Safety issues for a long period of time.
JOURNALIST: The one thing that isolation periods gave people was certainty about how long they should stay away from work if they are crook. Now do they stay away for five days? Seven days? Three days? One day? How long?
KELLY: It is covered in the letter, that specific issue. And as I said at the beginning, we have not changed the infectiousness of this virus. It remains infectious. The infectious period, we know the average is 2-3 days is the peak infectiousness. That's one level. Again, it would be: if anyone has symptoms they are more likely to be infectious. We're not stopping infectious people going out into the community now and we won't be in the future. The important thing is that within the context of where we are now, with high vaccination rates, high hybrid immunity and so forth, as well as the availability of treatments, it’s a different way of dealing with it. In terms of the occupational elements, particularly in those high-risk settings, that will remain a discussion with employers. Work health and safety elements apply for all sorts of infectious diseases, COVID should be seen like that.
JOURNALIST: On the health funding deal: is 50 per cent Commonwealth contributions on the table on an ongoing basis? Can the state and territory leaders tell us what they would like from the next funding deal?
PRIME MINISTER: I can tell you that what they would like is more money. Why stop at 50? Anyone here want 80? It is an ongoing debate which is there. I have stated very clearly my view and I must say there is, regardless of the debate about numbers, there is a consensus view, I think it is fair to say, that what we need to do is to take pressure off the hospital systems and there is a range of ways that you can do that. I have identified in a previous answer some of the ways, in terms of people with disabilities, people who don't have access to primary care, they can't get access to a GP so they end up at the local centre. We will have a range of measures in place at the budget in October that include the funding for urgent care clinics. Urgent care clinics are aimed at taking pressure off emergency departments. It was a very specific commitment that we gave to make them. They will provide for bulk billing services, so that if little Johnny or little Mary breaks her arm, she is not waiting in a queue at RPA or other hospitals around the country for six to eight hours to get access while they keep getting bumped further down the queue because people with more acute health issues are having to be dealt with. We need to look at these issues as an entire health system. And I must say that the discussion that we have had in the time that I've been Prime Minister is much less tabloid, if I can put it that way, about the level of the discussion and we will continue to talk those issues through.
JOURNALIST: On the Optus data leak, has Optus responded to your calls for them to pay for the replacement of passports for those people who have been implicated? The AFP has also launched an investigation and is assisting in protecting around 10,000 people. Should Optus pay for that as well?
PRIME MINISTER: The AFP are currently, while I'm speaking, holding a press conference. I'm not going to comment while the AFP are having that. I'll leave them to comment on the actions they have taken, except that I support the AFP in the response that they have undertaken. Optus have responded to the request that I made both in the Parliament and that Senator Wong made in writing to Optus. They will cover the costs of replacing affected customers’ passports. I think that is entirely appropriate. I find it extraordinary that the Federal Opposition called upon taxpayers to foot the bill. I note Paul Fletcher's comments this morning that attempted to play politics with this issue and blame the government, him having sat in a Cabinet for nine years and his failure to provide any criticism on a serious level of Optus. I leave Mr Fletcher to explain why that was the case.
JOURNALIST: On your comments about treating COVID like the flu or any other kind of virus. It's pretty clear that COVID does have long-term implications for some people who do get it. Number one, what are you doing to help people who may have those more long-term issues with COVID infections? And for Professor Kelly, are you expecting an impact on the general population by having COVID more freely spreading and how will that work with people getting long COVID?
PRIME MINISTER: I'm not a doctor, or an epidemiologist. I will leave that to Professor Kelly. What I would say is that as public decision makers, we have a responsibility to listen to the health advice but we also have a responsibility to make decisions which are proportionate. That is what we have done. COVID is still out there. We understand that. We talked about that need to continue to run campaigns to get people vaccinated. We continue to provide support in high risk areas. We'll continue to monitor these issues and we'll have another discussion in December. But as Professor Kelly said, we're making the decisions based upon the circumstances we're in right now. Just as over the winter period, where we had a combination of an increase in COVID infections with a severe flu season as well, that had a combined impact on the health system that required a continuation of emergency measures. Over a period of time, the nature of emergency measures is that they're not there with no end date in sight. And it would not be responsible to do so, because if this was a media conference a year ago, a whole range of things would have been different. Your actions as an individual journalist and as human beings out there, when you walk around the street, are different. People are responding differently. I was at the MCG last week with just over 100,000 people. That was not happening. Borders were closed. We are changing our position based upon changing advice and changing circumstances. And that has to occur. There's not a role for government in running every bit of people's lives forever and that is my firm position. This isn't an ideological thing. This is a practical outcome that was agreed across the board.
KELLY: On the long COVID situation: Australia is in quite a different situation to most of the rest of the world because of the measures and the decisions that we took in 2020 and 2021. Very few people – I'm aware the Victorian Premier is next to me, and they had a different experience in 2020 and in New South Wales in 2021 – for the majority of Australians, we were not exposed to COVID before we had at least two vaccines. We know that the major risk factors for long COVID are having had infection before vaccination, being unvaccinated, having severe illness and having other types of COVID that were not Omicron. None of those things pertain to the Australian situation for most of us. We're looking very closely and we've been tasked by Health Minister Butler to come up with a national plan about COVID. We're doing some very in-depth data work with Victoria at the moment, with the Commonwealth, which will yield interesting results and give more of an indication of what is happening. But so far, when we started to look at every piece of data that we have in the Commonwealth, we're not seeing a major picture of long COVID. I recognise that there are people out there with long-term symptoms. But it remains to be seen how that will play out in the Australian situation. And the parliamentary committee that has also been formed will help in that regard. But there will be more to say about that in coming weeks.