Daniel Andrews and Scott Morrison are pictured in Melbourne on Thursday
Scott Morrison has criticised Daniel Andrews’ proposed laws that would give him sweeping new powers to manage pandemics.
The laws, which have passed Victoria’s lower house and will be debated in the upper house next week, would give the premier the power to declare a pandemic for an unlimited period of time even if there are no cases of a virus.
The move would let the health minister make ‘any order’ he deems reasonably necessary’ which could include lockdowns, vaccine mandates, enforced mask-wearing and much more, with fines of up to $454,350 for rule-breakers.
The Prime Minister said Premier’s bid to secure more power was ‘confusing’ when Australia is finally opening up after 18 months of Covid-19 restrictions – and said Aussies want governments to stop interfering in their lives.
‘Victorians have gone through the worst of the pandemic… I can understand their frustration where governments are seeking to have more involvement in their lives,’ he told radio 3AW on Friday.
‘We’re going in the opposite direction… Australians have had enough of governments telling them what to do.
‘That’s been necessary for a couple of years but we’re coming out of that now and I think the timing of this is confusing.’
Protesters march against the new laws through the streets of Melbourne on Tuesday
But Mr Morrison refused to criticise any harder, saying he would leave that job to the Victorian Opposition.
‘Well, look, I’m always respectful of the Federation, and I am respectful. I don’t give lectures to through this pandemic. I respect the Federation,’ he said.
‘I work with all the premiers and chief ministers but the key message about this is it’s your call, your responsibility and don’t expect the federal government to go and argue your case when it’s not a policy that we have.’
It comes after Victoria’s top barristers called for Mr Andrews to delay and wind back the proposed laws.
The laws would give broad powers to the health minister to make orders and the police (pictured last month in Melbourne) to enforce them
Victorian Bar president Christopher Blanden QC previously called the proposed laws ‘extreme’ and said the Stasi, the secret police in communist East Germany from 1950 to 1990, would be happy with the powers.
On Wednesday the Bar – made up of hundreds of top barristers – published a submission to the Department of Health which listed several problems with the laws and demanded changes.
It came as Mr Andrews was forced to cancel a press conference outside Bendigo TAFE on Wednesday on police advice because angry protesters unhappy with the laws were gathered outside.
In its submission, the Bar said it wants a definition of a ‘pandemic disease’ to be spelled out and the health minister’s power to be limited to specific actions.
The lawyers want the minister to have to consider the ‘harm and inconvenience’ his orders may cause before he makes them.
The Bar said the law gives ‘breathtakingly broad’ powers to public officials who would be able to ‘take any action or give any direction’ – except detain someone – to enforce pandemic orders and wants these powers to have a time limit.
The laws would also allow the health minister to order someone be detained. The lawyers want the reasons for possible detention spelled out and an independent review process to oversee this.
The Bar has also raised concerns the laws allow orders such as lockdowns to be applied to people based on attributes protected by the Equal Opportunity Act such as race, gender and political association.
‘The Victorian Bar is particularly concerned about the inclusion of an express power to make pandemic orders that apply to a person by reference to their political belief, industrial activity or personal association with others,’ the submissions said.
‘The Victorian Bar recommends that the Bill be amended to exclude differentiation based on attributes that are of no obvious relevance to a person’s health risk profile.’
The lawyers said ‘serious concerns’ had been raised and want the Bill to be delayed.
Mr Andrews relies on three crossbenchers to get the laws through. Reason Party MP Fiona Patten has said ‘there will be amendments’ after listening to concerns of lawyers and human rights advocates.
Mr Andrews (pictured) relies on three crossbenchers to get the laws through parliament
Huge fines and jail
The new laws state a person can be fined up to $21,909 for breaching a pandemic order.
This could include not wearing a mask, breaking a movement limit, attending an illegal protest or a gathering, refusing to get tested or failing to show ID.
Businesses can be fined up to $109,044 for breaking rules which may include failing to make sure customers check-in or show proof of vaccine status.
The new law will allow the health minister to make ‘any order’ he deems ‘reasonably necessary’ including lockdowns, vaccine mandates and enforced mask-wearing. Pictured: Melbourne in lockdown in October
In addition, there is a new aggravated offence for breaches that ’cause a serious risk to the health of another individual’.
These can be punished with a $90,870 fine and two years in jail. An example given in the bill is someone going to work when they are infectious and should be isolating.
Businesses can also be guilty of an aggravated offence, with a maximum fine of $454,350 if, for example, they refuse to obey a lockdown and encourage customers to also flout the rules.
Power to the premier
Under the new laws the premier would be able to declare a pandemic for three months an unlimited number of times.
The current state of emergency laws require a parliamentary vote to extend them every 12 months – but the new laws have no time limit.
The health minister will be able to sign off on public health orders instead of the Chief Health Officer, a role currently held by Brett Sutton.
This gives the health minister the power to enforce lockdowns, shut down businesses, restrict movement, require masks, ban public gatherings, and enforce quarantine and isolation – powers currently held by the unelected CHO.
These powers can be implemented regardless of the number of disease cases or severity.
The bill will also extend the mandatory payment for hotel quarantine beyond 31 December.
Vaccine mandates and lockdowns for anti-vaxxers
The bill states that a pandemic order such as a lockdown or a vaccine mandate ‘may apply to, differentiate between or vary in its application to persons or classes of person’.
This allows the Government to select who it wants to apply the order to, including people who have been at a certain event, who live in a certain area or who have a certain type of job.
The Government can discriminate based on ‘presence in a pandemic management area; participation at an event; an activity they have undertaken; their characteristics, attributes or circumstances,’ the bill says.
It also allows the Government to lockdown unvaccinated people only.
Under the new laws the premier would be able to shut down businesses, restrict movement and ban public gatherings even if there were no disease cases in Victoria. Pictured: A protester is arrested by police at a protest in St Kilda in October
The bill says the Government can discriminate based on attributes defined in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 which include race, religion, sexual orientation, marital status and political views.
The group of lawyers against the bill warned a future health minister could target people based on their ‘political beliefs or activities that involve questioning or opposing the government public health measures.’
But Health Minister Martin Foley said those factors would not be taken into account.
‘Any suggestion that those other considerations of the public health processes, that is just really mischief making. These are recommendations that come forward on clinical and epidemiological grounds. Not those kinds of characteristics,’ he said.
Professor Brett Sutton said attributes and characteristics could refer to ‘intimate partners having the opportunity to see other individuals… people normally resident in regional Victoria… children under 16 years of age because they haven’t had a vaccination opportunity… vaccinated or unvaccinated individuals in a vaccinated economy.
‘You need the agility to spread to those characteristics and attributes that might exclude someone from a public health order and that might be directed at someone,’ he said.
Tiered fines system
In a small win for disadvantaged people, the bill will allow disadvantaged people to apply for a ‘concessional’ fine.
Greens leader Samantha Ratnam negotiated this in discussions with the Government.
She said: ‘I’m pleased that the Greens have been able to make sure these new laws have more transparency and are fairer for all Victorians, especially those facing disadvantage.’
Barista Maelys is seen at work at Cafe Chez Mademoiselle in Prahran, Melbourne, in October
Make health advice public
The Victorian Government has faced constant criticism for not releasing the health advice that its lockdown decisions are based on.
The bill will require the publication of the reasons for the Chief Health Officer recommending a pandemic order.
It will also establish an Independent Pandemic Management Advisory Committee to scrutinise Government decisions and health advice.
Under the new laws the premier would be able to declare a pandemic for an unlimited time, with an extension required every three months. Pictured: Victoria Police in October
QR safeguards
The new laws will ensure stronger safeguards to stop unlawful access to QR code check-in or contact tracing data, with a new offence in place.
It means police can only get hold of the data if there is an ‘imminent threat’ to someone’s life.
Officers must acquire a Supreme Court order to access the data.
This comes after it was revealed in June that police failed three times to get access to QR code data.
Reaction to the law
Opposition leader Matthew Guy said he would throw out the laws if he won the November 2022 election.
‘I’ve never seen such an attack on Australian democracy as rules like this’ where ‘one man can rule by decree,’ he said.
The existing power of Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton (left) to make special public health orders would be passed over to health minister Martin Foley (right) under the new laws
The Opposition will propose a 60 per cent majority in both houses of parliament be required before a pandemic or an extended state of emergency can be declared.
Under the proposed alternative, the state of emergency powers and the need for them would have to be re-examined and voted on every 30 days.
But Greens leader Samantha Ratnam backs the laws because she says they are better than the current state of emergency powers.
‘I’m pleased that the Greens have been able to make sure these new laws have more transparency and are fairer for all Victorians, especially those facing disadvantage,’ she said.
