Case for and against amended pandemic laws

Daniel Andrews has said the government didn’t have “the luxury” of carrying out extensive consultation over controversial pandemic laws, as he stands firm on the legislation.

Premier Daniel Andrews has defended the government’s approach to contentious pandemic legislation, warning the state did not have the luxury to consult until it had universal support.

The Victorian Bar, the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Liberty Victoria, the state Ombudsman and most crossbench MPs have doubled down on their opposition to the controversial pandemic management Bill, which is set for a vote on Wednesday.

Asked on Wednesday about their objections over the laws, and the way they were drafted, Mr Andrews said it was “simply wrong” to suggest there had been no consultation.

“None of us have the luxury to consult, consult, consult in order to achieve universal support,” he said.

“If you did that, well, we would be here for a very long time.

“At some point, you have to say, right, we’ve listened to a broad range of things.

“Even the greatest critic of this Bill would accept that it is a better set of arrangements than the current Public Health and Wellbeing Act.”

“Does every single stakeholder and group support every single word in the Bill? Well, no, and that’s never the case.”

Mr Andrews said there was always disagreement or different views in the creation of new laws.

“That’s what the parliament is here for,” he said.

“That’s why we have elections every four years and that’s why people are elected to make these very difficult decisions.

“The upper house is doing that important work and no doubt they’re in for some long hours this week.”

Earlier, Mr Andrews insisted his government would forge ahead with the proposed laws, with no further amendments.

He sid he was confident the Bill would pass with the support of three key crossbench MPs.

“This is not about being popular, it’s about doing what’s right, it’s about getting the job done,” he said.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has vowed to push on with the Bill. Picture: Andrew Henshaw

It comes as NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet delayed a bid to extend his state’s emergency Covid-19 powers, including the ability for police officers to fine people for breaching public health orders.

NSW Health Minister Brad Hazzard had been pushing to extend Public Health Act temporary provisions set to expire in March next year – until as late as October 31, 2023. But Mr Perrottet intervened on Tuesday, saying: “Only the health provisions that need to be extended will be extended. I will be carefully considering this matter over the summer break”.

After the Victorian government unveiled a number of amendments following widespread community concern, Victorian Bar president Róisín Annesley, QC, said the changes did not go far enough to protect the rule of law.

“The proposed amendments largely address low-priority issues and not the most fundamental problems with the Bill,” she said.

“The major issues include the lack of effective parliamentary control over the minister’s pandemic orders and the lack of provision for an independent review of authorised officers’ exercise of power.”

Ms Annesley’s views were echoed by Law Institute of Victoria president Tania Wolff, who urged MPs to keep working on the Bill and to resist rushing it through parliament.

“The LIV continues to have concerns over some aspects of the Bill and urges members of parliament to continue working through amendments to the legislation to ensure it is fit for the purpose of protecting our democracy and safeguarding members of the community,” she said.

Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief Paul Guerra said there were still too many unresolved issues with the proposed laws.

“It is crucial that our legislators get it right, particularly with the lens of how a future, and unknown, government may apply it,” Mr Guerra said.

“The mooted changes to the Bill seem to have picked up some of the chamber’s concerns, but several issues ­remain that we would like to see addressed.

“Throughout the pandemic, we have been vocal in our call for the perspective of business to be officially considered in the decision-making process on the public health orders, in addition to health advice and community advice, and we think this should be reflected in legislation.

“We would also like to see the legislated definition of an authorised officer and have greater clarity over the level of training and authority they will have.”

Greens leader Samantha Ratnam, Reason Party leader Fiona Patten and Animal Justice Party’s Andy Meddick are set to vote in favour of the Bill. Picture: Andrew Henshaw

Ombudsman Deborah Glass raised similar concerns, warning the proposed changes still failed to provide a “greater level of independent oversight”.

“I welcome the changes we’ve seen. I think they are certainly an improvement … (but) it doesn’t go far enough,” she said.

“There needs to be a greater level of independent oversight and independent review. We haven’t yet seen that.”

Major law firm Maurice Blackburn broke ranks with the legal bodies to argue the amendments made Victoria’s pandemic legislation better than before Covid and better than in other states.

The Herald Sun spoke to eight crossbenchers on Tuesday who were adamant they would not be supporting the Bill.

They include Justice Party MPs Stuart Grimley and Tania Maxwell and Liberal Democrats David Limbrick and Tim Quilty.

“The Bill that’s been served is a muck sandwich, and the amendments are hundreds and thousands to make it a bit sweeter,” Mr Limbrick said.

Independent MP Catherine Cumming has proposed further amendments to the Bill and said she wouldn’t support it in its current form.

But the government was confident it would pass the Bill after securing the support of Greens MP Samantha Ratnam, the Animal Justice Party’s Andy Meddick and the Reason Party’s Fiona Patten, giving it an expected majority in the upper house.

The three MPs said they were “proud” to be part of a team that had worked “calmly, quietly and politely” in the face of “outrageous threats and behaviour”.

Liberty Victoria president Julia Kretzenbacher said while the amendments were a step in the right direction, they were still lacking.

“We’re pleased that the requirement for pandemic orders and other actions taken under the Act to comply with the Charter of Human Rights has been expressly included,” she said. “However, we’re disappointed to see that an independent merits review mechanism of detention ­orders has not been included.”

Opposition Leader Matthew Guy, who has vowed to repeal the laws if elected to government, urged the Premier to withdraw the Bill.

But Mr Andrews said the legislation was filled with safeguards and oversight mechanisms which far exceeded any state and “perhaps any other country”.