Tom Minear: Secrecy over pandemic Bill was always going to stir fear

As angry protests erupt over the Andrews government’s pandemic Bill, the Premier should rethink how his crash-or-crash-through approach affects the public mood.

When Daniel Andrews tried to extend Victoria’s state of emergency last year, as Melburnians languished in lockdown, the Premier’s team seemed shocked by the backlash.

They figured it was a bureaucratic adjustment to ensure pandemic-specific rules could continue operating. In doing so, they underestimated the psychological impact of the move, particularly on Victorians who incorrectly assumed it meant lockdown was being extended.

There was a lesson to be learnt – and either the state government missed it, or they didn’t care.

For months, the government has known the state of emergency could not be extended beyond December 15, prompting them to draw up new fit-for-purpose laws. Regardless of what was in the Bill, it was inevitable that it would trigger a similar if not worse reaction, given Victorians now fairly assume the state’s vaccination rates have guaranteed their freedom.

Daniel Andrews should know transparency breeds trust and secrecy breeds suspicion. Picture: Andrew Henshaw

But Andrews and his team did what they always do. They drafted the Bill and negotiated with select crossbench MPs behind closed doors, and then tried to rush it through parliament.

While that might be defensible in ordinary circumstances, these laws are extraordinary.

To ease the concerns of voters, Andrews could have released a draft for consultation. He could have offered to negotiate with the opposition. He could have put the legislation before parliament with enough time for the scrutiny of a multi-party committee, as regularly happens in Canberra. Transparency breeds trust; secrecy breeds suspicion.

This in no way justifies the violent threats made at protests this week. These abhorrent scenes must be condemned. But this perilous moment should prompt Andrews to reconsider how his crash-or-crash-through approach affects the public mood, especially at the margins.

This perilous moment should prompt Andrews to reconsider how his crash-or-crash-through approach affects the public mood. Picture: Jason Edwards

As Scott Morrison said last week, it is up to leaders to “constantly maintain their goodwill” with voters, particularly after such unprecedented government intervention in their lives.

The PM is right about this. But he is certainly not without fault. Some of his MPs have been instrumental in stirring up fear about the safety of vaccines and the imposition of mandates, fuelling the discontent in Melbourne.

While some of their concerns stem from justifiable ideological principles, they have also spread dangerous misinformation without any condemnation from Morrison.

Meanwhile, the state opposition has made the opposite mistake to the government, by allowing itself to be caught up in the anger of protests so removed from mainstream views.

Matthew Guy has been reckless with his rhetoric. Picture: Andrew Henshaw

Some protesters are fairly ordinary Victorians, particularly those who took to the streets on the weekend, but the presence of extremist agitators should have served as a warning to Liberal MPs who instead validated them by joining them outside parliament.

Matthew Guy, who has not attended, has still been reckless with his rhetoric, declaring the legislation “means more lockdowns” and will be used by Andrews to “punish Victorians”.

The Liberal leader should know better. The Bill is not perfect, and changes are needed, but deliberately scaring Victorians who have suffered so much is unnecessarily inflammatory.

Victoria is about to crash through the 90 per cent vaccination mark. With the right leadership, this should have been a week to celebrate.

ALBO RISKS BEING FULL OF HOT AIR

There was a lot of bluff and bluster from Anthony Albanese on Wednesday about the Herald Sun’s report that Labor was leaning towards a 2030 emissions reduction target of at least 40 per cent.

The story in question – which the Labor leader admitted he hadn’t read – made it clear that discussions within the opposition were ongoing, but that senior Labor figures believed their most likely option was a target above the government’s 35 per cent projection and below their 45 per cent commitment from the last election.

This is obviously a fraught decision for Labor, with some MPs instead pushing to match the government’s policy and move on, averting another damaging scare campaign.

Both approaches have their merits. The difficulty for Albanese is that his rhetoric will turn out to be a lot of hot air if Labor doesn’t offer a more ambitious climate policy.

Labor is yet to decide on their climate policy but it might not be ambitious as their last pledge. Picture: David Swift

Earlier this week, Albanese said the government had promised a 35 per cent cut by the end of the decade “by doing nothing”. He said that under Labor, Australia would “tackle climate change and would join the world rather than being in the naughty corner”.

On Wednesday, as he criticised the Herald Sun’s story, Albanese also pointed to how the COP26 climate pact required countries including Australia to come back next year with more ambitious 2030 emissions reduction commitments.

“Australia needs to be a part of the global solution to what is a global challenge,” he said.

Albanese has set the standard on how Labor’s eventual policy should be judged. If it merely mirrors the government to neutralise the issue, his words will be seen as hollow and hypocritical.

The Labor leader has shown admirable restraint throughout his time in opposition in persisting with a small-target strategy that limits his exposure to political attacks.

At some point, however, his supporters – both inside caucus and the electorate more broadly – will expect him to stand for something.

They think Scott Morrison and Barnaby Joyce are an embarrassment on climate change. What will it say about Albanese if his ambition and his policy are no different?