Adem Somyurek: Why I won’t be supporting pandemic Bill

Adem Somyurek on why he’ll vote against the pandemic Bill and the risks it poses to abuse of power.

The pandemic has demonstrated the importance of state government in the Australian federation and the impact its coercive powers can have on Victorians lives.

Given its importance, there is not enough attention and scrutiny on it. And when there is, the government or opposition is judged through the prism of the leader.

Commentators’ proclivity to sing the virtues of a “strong leader” in a system that was not designed to accommodate them has created autocratic leaders who have ruled by decree, undermining parliament as a mechanism to hold the government to account.

Focus on the leader is designed to be a feature of the pure presidential system such as the US, where the popularly-elected president has executive powers. Still, those are checked by the separation of powers between the legislature and the executive. No such separation exists in our Westminster system. The checks and balances in the Westminster system were not designed to combat a strong leader that dominated the ­parliament.

MP Adem Somyurek will not vote in favour of the pandemic Bill. Picture: David Geraghty

Our system was created before the advent of disciplined modern political parties.

Therefore, the parliamentary accountability mechanism was effective because MPs were able to be persuaded by the merits of each issue under consideration.

But parliamentary accountability has declined to such an extent that it ceased to exist in lower houses with the advent of disciplined modern political parties. Accountability of the executive only exists in the upper house, where the government does not control the numbers in that chamber.

Where it does, our parliamentary system is essentially an elective dictatorship.

Governments that have a majority in both houses can ensure they have the numbers in all committees.

The Andrews government does not have the numbers in the upper house in its own right, but it does with a group of three crossbenchers who share ideological views with the Labor Left.

During this term, those three have effectively become a far-left faction of the Labor government, but with more clout than the two traditional factions combined.

Because Labor has control of both houses and parliament can no longer perform its scrutiny functions, internal scrutiny and collective decision making through cabinet and caucus is even more critical.

But I have been in three Labor governments, and never has the caucus and cabinet been sidelined as much as during this term.

Premier Daniel Andrews. Picture: Andrew Henshaw

The three crossbenchers are likely to be consulted before caucus members and cabinet ministers. This leaves Andrews as the sole decision-maker, which is not acceptable in complex modern government.

After more than a year of bipartisan support during the pandemic, the US state legislatures are fighting back against the executives by diluting their emergency powers.

But the lack of separation of powers in the Westminster system means it is difficult to protect the population from the tyranny of rule by decree when a docile party room is cowed into accepting a lack of input into decision making.

Had I continued to be a member of the Andrews cabinet, I would have argued this Bill is a bad idea because it gives too much power to the government.

Since I did not trust the opposition (Coalition) with such power I would argue that without meaningful parliamentary oversight and independent review mechanisms as Victorians we all risk the prospect of being unjustly governed by a Coalition despot in the future.

Given the democratic deficit in our parliamentary system, I believe the emergency powers need to come back to parliament for endorsement of a two-thirds majority.

Since the parliament committees also function along disciplined party lines, they are also not appropriate mechanisms to provide the scrutiny and checks and balances needed for such an important task.

Therefore, the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) and an expert panel appointed by the Minister falls short of the appropriate mechanisms of scrutiny which only an independent body can provide.

This week, the government defended the SARC as a committee that decides every issue at hand on its merits.

As a person that has been at the forefront of enforcing party discipline, I can tell you the merit of the issue under consideration is what the Premier’s Private Office says it is. I will not support this bill in its current form, and I would encourage the government to go back to the drawing board and consult more broadly.

I look forward to having an input into any new Bill that the government may seek to formulate.