Matthew Guy criticises pandemic Bill as Andrews government announces amendments

Opposition leader Matthew Guy says the Andrews government’s pandemic legislation is “a huge hindrance to us moving on from Covid” as debate over the Bill heats up.

Opposition leader Matthew Guy says the proposed amendments of the controversial pandemic legislation are just “slight changes” that will place more power in the hands of the government-controlled scrutiny of acts and regulations committee.

“This Bill, in whatever form it is, is a huge hindrance to us moving on from Covid,” Mr Guy said.

“This Bill is not needed. Withdraw it, and do it properly. Do it in conjunction with Victorians.”

With Victoria’s state of emergency due to expire on December 15, Mr Guy said all remaining Covid restrictions and measures could be enforced through health orders.

Opposition leader Matthew Guy says he doesn’t support the bill. Picture: Andrew Henshaw

“Why do we need to be in a state of emergency by the end of the week when no one else will be? Why can’t we move on sensibly and rationally?”

He rejected the notion that the government hadn’t had ample opportunity to properly create the legislation.

“At the end of the day, the government has had 12 months to do this. They can’t run off and say ‘oh, well, we need this in the next two days’. They’ve chosen to consult no one until the very last minute,” he said.

“Yet again the government conducts this dance with the same old independents that they use through legislative means to get their way. I think Victorians are tired of this kind of political charade. I think we’re also tired of Covid, and we’re tired of being misled by governments due to Covid or during Covid.”

Shadow Attorney-General Matt Bach said it was “crystal clear” that the government’s amendments went “nowhere near far enough to fix the fundamental flaws in this legislation”.

It comes after Victorian Ombudsman Deborah Glass raised similar concerns.

Ms Glass said the amendments, in their current form, needed 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.

Victorian Ombudsman Deborah Glass says the amendments don’t go far enough.

“I think there should be oversight by a court over pandemic orders. There needs to be some independent place that people can go that will give binding timely decisions on what are, indeed, extraordinary new powers.”

Mr Bach said he’s had multiple conversations with legal professionals and QCs, who he claims still hold significant concerns about the legislation despite the changes.

“They continue to have the concerns that so many of their colleagues had when they wrote that damning open letter,” he said.

Leader of the opposition in the upper house, David Davis, added there was no urgency in rushing the laws through parliament.

“This is not an urgent Bill. This is an arrogant government. It’s an undemocratic government, and it’s a government that’s prepared to damage and trash the democratic traditions of this parliament,” he said.

Mr Davis said every upper house opposition MP would speak about the legislation in the chamber.

“This is a very important opportunity to highlight those deficiencies in the Bill. We want to send a very clear message that we’re fighting this,” he said.

“In the upper house, unlike the lower house, we actually look at the Bill in detail, clause by clause.

“The opportunity is there for MPs to ask specific questions on each and every clause. We will do that. We will use that democratic opportunity to seek more information, but also to highlight what we see as the serious deficiencies that remain in the Bill.”

Liberal Democrat MP David Limbrick, who this week put an end to his parliamentary ban by providing his vaccination details, said the Bill, if passed, would enable the government to set up a “two-tier segregated society”.

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

Independent MP Catherine Cumming told the Herald Sun she would not vote in support of the Bill.

“A big fat no,” she said.

“The government’s amendments are a slap in the face of all Victorians and the suffering they have gone through under this Daniel Andrews government.”

The deeply divisive Bill has seen some concerned it would give politicians too much power, while others argue it will bring Victoria into line with other jurisdictions.

AMENDMENTS DON’T ADDRESS ‘FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS’

The Victorian Bar has urged the Andrews Government to go further with changes to its pandemic legislation, warning the current adjustments miss key complaints.

President of the Victorian Bar, Róisín Annesley QC, on Tuesday said amendments revealed this week did not address concerns about 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.”

In a submission on November 3, the Victorian Bar urged the government to address these two issues.

It called for changes allowing pandemic orders to be cancelled by either house of parliament and without the need for a parliamentary committee.

Another key recommendation was that people who are detained for breaching pandemic orders have the right to have their detention reviewed by an independent court.

They argued that this decision should not be given to a Department of Health employee.

CROSSBENCH MPS ‘PROUD’

The three crossbench MPs at the centre of controversial pandemic legislation have said they are “proud” of the work they’ve done in the face of “outrageous threats and behaviour”.

It comes after the Andrews government was forced to wind back parts of its controversial pandemic management Bill to secure the crossbenchers’ support needed to pass it through parliament.

But the changes don’t address all of the concerns of legal experts and civil liberty groups, who slammed the powers as a dangerous overreach, along with the opposition, which will make the laws a key election issue.

The state government on ­Monday night announced a raft of changes to the proposed laws that will slash financial penalties for breaching orders and force the release of public health advice sooner than originally planned.

However, Victorians would still face up to two years’ ­imprisonment for aggravated breaches of pandemic orders under the new legislation.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has been forced to make several changes. Picture: Andrew Henshaw

There has been widespread community backlash over the powers and warnings the laws are excessive, including from the state’s most senior lawyers.

Changes to the proposed laws also include reducing the reporting period for ­documents associated with pandemic orders from 14 days to seven and increased ­parliamentary oversight of pandemic orders.

The government also scrapped a clause that would have allowed pandemic orders to be made against classes of persons based on attributes as defined in the Equal Opportunity Act. It could have included discriminating against people based on their political beliefs or religion.

Instead the laws will insert examples of how a ­pandemic order may differentiate between people, and must be relevant to a public health risk.

Daniel Andrews said some of the key amendments would put initial concerns beyond any doubt.

“There are some who called for exactly these measures just a few weeks ago. And as soon as the government did it, they change their position. That’s the definition of a political game,” the Premier said.

“The thing about these wars and about our management of this pandemic is that it’s not a game. It’s very much about keeping people safe.”

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

“I’m hopeful, that at the end of the week, the Legislative Council will see fit to support the Bill.”

Mr Andrews rejected claims from the opposition that the powers would be used for evil to lock the state down again.

Protesters on the steps of Victorian Parliament to protest the new pandemic bill. Picture: Jason Edwards

“We’re back to political games. You’ve got the opposition who want to have it a bit both ways — standing with people who are anti-vaxxers, sharing a podium with people who are anti-science and anti-vaccination,” he said.

“The reason we’re open and the reason we’re going to stay open is because people have got vaccinated.”

Asked about fears that Victoria was becoming divided, Mr Andrews said: “I don’t necessarily think that division is reflected across the board. Victorians are united because more than nine in 10 Victorians have gone and got vaccinated.

“We’re open because people have done the very thing that large elements of these protesters are urging Victorians not to do and that’s get vaccinated”.

But he acknowledged, “yes, there is repair to be done”.

Mr Andrews’ comments come after disturbing footage revealed dozens of rowdy protesters cheering on as an effigy of the Premier was thrown on to a makeshift gallows.

KEY CROSSBENCHERS TO VOTE IN SUPPORT

The suite of changes is not expected to secure the support of the entire crossbench, with further amendments to be moved, including blocking a pandemic from being declared unless the disease was actually in Victoria, and stricter time limits for how long a pandemic order can last.

With state of emergency laws to expire next month, and unable to be extended, the­ ­government needs the support of at least three crossbench MPs to pass the legislation.

Greens leader Samantha Ratnam, Reason Party leader Fiona Patten and Animal Justice Party MP Andy Meddick are preparing to vote in support of the revised Bill, but rejected claims the legislation would not be rushed through parliament.

Ms Patten said it was the role of the upper house to scrutinise legislation.

“We are not the government, but we are not the opposition. We are there to improve legislation,” she said.

The legislation will be debated until midnight on Tuesday before it begins again on Thursday.

“I welcome the many hours that we will be scrutinising this legislation … every word, every clause,” Ms Patten said.

Reason Party leader Fiona Patten. Picture: Getty Images

Andy Meddick said a “good bill” had been made “even better”. Picture: AAP

The trio, which was subject to vile attacks, has sounded the alarm over a rise in right-wing extremism over the past couple of weeks.

“We have conducted ourselves, calmly, quietly, and politely,” Mr Meddick said.

Meanwhile, Health Minister Martin Foley said it was not unusual for amendments to be moved.

He rejected claims from the opposition that the amendments didn’t go far enough.

“The Liberal party’s has been bordering on the silly. You just come to expect that from the opposition,” he said.

Under the current Bill, ­Victorians caught breaching health orders could be jailed for up to two years or fined $90,000 for aggravated breaches of orders, but the ­financial penalty will be halved in amendments moved by the government.

Draft amendments seen by the Herald Sun also adopt the World Health Organisation’s definition of pandemic, and cap at 12 months the period at which automatic three-month extensions to orders could be applied before monthly parliamentary approval was required for further extensions.

Another push has centred around ensuring an independent body was able to review the government’s pandemic orders, rather than the current proposal of giving this role to parliament’s Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee.

Health Minister Martin Foley. Picture: Ian Currie

Parliamentary committees are often chaired by the government of the day and have a majority of government MPs.

Crossbenchers have asked to distance the review process from these political positions.

The Bill has been the subject of furious community debate.

In a submission to the Department of Health, the ­Victorian Bar said the Bill “seeks to take powers that were intended to be used for a very limited period of up to 6 months in an unforeseen emergency, and to entrench them as the ordinary method of dealing with pandemic ­diseases over extended ­periods.”

“The rule of law, the sovereignty of parliament and the checks and balances of our democratic Westminster system of government must be respected, even in times of emergency or crisis,” the submission says.

“Whilst broad emergency powers which circumscribe ­ordinary checks and balances of our democracy may be ­justified to deal with an ­unforeseen crisis in the short term, they are not appropriate for the management of risks over extended periods of time.

“It may be convenient for the government to have the broadest and most flexible powers possible to deal with pandemic diseases. However, the rule of law cannot bow to convenience.”

OPPOSITION’S PUSH FOR AMENDMENTS

The opposition will attempt to move 18 amendments to the Bill.

Leader of the opposition in the upper house, David Davis, said the Bill was all but certain to pass with support from three key crossbench MPs.

“This is a flawed bill and no amount of tinkering or changes will make it acceptable,” Mr Davis said.

“If the government is going to use its numbers and its three friends to actually force this to become an urgent Bill, we think that breaches normal parliamentary procedure, we think that breaches the democratic traditions of our parliament and we will certainly oppose that.”

Opposition Leader Matthew Guy with leader of the opposition in the upper house David Davis. Picture: Sarah Matray

Opposition Leader Matthew Guy has vowed to repeal the laws if elected to government.

As well as lawyers and civil liberty groups, Victoria’s peak business groups urged revision of the Bill. A joint statement by the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Industry Group said serious issues with the proposed laws needed to be worked through.

“This legislation is designed for the long term, not just the current pandemic,” it said.

“That is why all political parties should consider this proposal in a bipartisan way and think about the consequences of the legislation in another era. This is not about the current administration and current pandemic. It needs to be foolproof and not be open to abuse by any future premier, minister or government.”