Seven things wrong with Andrews’ pandemic Bill

The Victorian Bar has slammed the government’s proposed pandemic powers and called for very specific changes to protect the liberties of Victorians.

Pressure continues to mount on the Andrews government to delay rushing its controversial pandemic laws through parliament.

The Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021 has already passed the lower house and is set to be voted on in the upper house next week.

But Victoria’s peak legal body has joined calls by the Victorian Bar and more than 60 QCs not to rush the laws through.

The Law Institute of Victoria has warned the bill “does not sufficiently protect the rights of Victorians” and lacks proper parliamentary oversight.

Health Minister Martin Foley and Premier Daniel Andrews in Parliament. Picture: Andrew Henshaw

IIn a paper outlining concerns on the proposed laws, the LIV said it was vital MPs took longer to properly debate the implications of the Bill.

“Over the last 20 months, the LIV has been generally supportive of introducing measures that are appropriately tailored and proportionate to the risks presented by the pandemic, but has always maintained that power should not be unfettered,” the institute said in a statement to its 20,000 members.

“There is an opportunity now, as restrictions ease and vaccination targets are reached, to reflect on the measures taken to contain the Covid-19 pandemic, and to ­ensure that only the least ­restrictive means possible to achieve public health ­objectives are used to contain future outbreaks of infectious diseases of pandemic proportions.

“The bill has been introduced at a time when the Victorian population is reaching its target vaccination rates.

“We would question whether passing these powers so urgently in these circumstances is proportionate to the reduced risks currently posed by the pandemic.

“Rushed legislation is often compromised legislation. The LIV urges pause for lawmakers to further consider the potential impact of the proposed legislation, as it needs to be fit for the purpose of protecting our democracy, safeguarding members of the community, and be unable to be exploited by governments of unknown persuasions in the future.”

The LIV cited a number of concerns with the proposed laws including the fact pandemic orders could be in place for an unlimited period of time.

It has also raised concerns about many powers which “appear to be an unnecessary infringement on democratic rights and freedoms, with little oversight offered by a truly ­independent body”.

The Bill would give increased power to Victoria’s Chief Health Officer. Picture: Luis Ascui

Other concerns include the threat of jail terms for aggravated breaches of orders and the extended powers given to “authorised officers”.

“To increase the likelihood of public confidence and compliance – there should not be a law enforcement emphasis behind the creation of lockdown laws,” the LIV said.

“Terms of imprisonment should not apply in respect of matters arising from the Bill and are excessive in the context of breach of pandemic laws.”

The government will need the support of key crossbenchers to pass the Bill, with the Greens’ Samantha Ratnam, the Animal Justice Party’s Andy Meddick and Reason Party leader Fiona Patten flagging support for the legislation.

They have refused to discuss any proposed amendments to the Bill they plan to move.

The Victorian Bar, the body representing the state’s barristers, has also urged the government to delay pushing ahead with the laws warning they are too broad and need to be wound back.

Premier Daniel Andrews is mobbed by protesters in Bendigo.

Protesters target chief health officer Brett Sutton and Covid-19 testing commander Jeroen Weimar.

Premier Daniel Andrews was on Wednesday forced to cancel a regional press conference on police advice amid a protest against the controversial powers, with key crossbench MPs abused with death threats and vile letters.

Footage also emerged of protesters hurling abuse at chief health officer Brett Sutton and Covid-19 commander Jeroen Weimar as they left state parliament this week.

Victorian Bar president Chris­topher Blanden QC, speak­ing in a personal capacity, has previously slammed the Bill, saying the way it was being rushed through parliament was an attack on democracy.

In a submission, the Victorian Bar, has urged the government to delay introducing the Bill into the upper house.

“It authorises extreme limitations of basic liberties of all Victorians and confers enormous powers on the executive,” it said. It is among the most important pieces of legislation to come before the Victorian Parliament in decades.

Premier Daniel Andrews and his government are being urged to delay the controversial pandemic management Bill.

“Serious concerns about the Bill have been raised publicly by a number of legal organisations, including the Victorian Bar,” the submission continues. “The Victorian Bar urges the government to delay the introduction of the Bill into the upper house, so as to seriously consider the issues that have been raised, and make amendments to the Bill.”

Recommended amendments include defining the meaning of “pandemic” and limiting the powers of authorised officers. Detained persons would also have the ability to appeal against their detention, and public health advice would be released at the same time an order was made, not within 14 days.

Concerns have also been raised about the “extraordinary breadth of the (Health) Minister’s power to make a pandemic order”.

Once a pandemic declaration is made, the Bill grants the minister powers to make “any order” with the Victorian Bar calling for that power to be limited to specific actions. More than 60 QCs added their names to an open letter opposing the proposed laws. It has warned the legislation would give the government unprecedented powers to rule by decree for the foreseeable future.

“The overriding concern is that the Bill, if passed, may allow the Victorian government effectively to rule the State of Victoria by decree for the foreseeable future, without proper parliamentary oversight or the usual checks and balances on executive power,” the lawyers wrote.

Originally published as Seven things wrong with Andrews’ pandemic Bill