Lawyers Weekly report on the contentious bill
The Victorian government is aiming to pass its controversial pandemic legislation by the end of the week, and while some have praised the transparency provisions in it, others have debated whether its powers are too broad. In this wrap-up, Lawyers Weekly compiles the pros and cons from the legal profession’s response.
Dominating the headlines and, more recently, Melbourne streets is the heated debate over proposed legislation that would grant the Premier and the Health Minister the power to declare a pandemic and make health orders. The Victorian government is arguing that the new laws are “purpose built” for pandemic responses, meaning that many key legislative changes are based on the challenges over the last two years.
Victorian Health Minister Martin Foley – who, together with any successors, would have those pandemic powers – told media this week: “We’ve got nothing to shy away from when it comes to the manner in which we’ve operated over the past two years, in what’s been a really, really challenging global pandemic. The lessons that we’ve learned over that period of time are now reflected in this bill.”
Specifically, the proposed legislation will shift the power to declare a pandemic from the chief health officer to the Premier. It will allow the state’s pandemic status to be declared for up to three months at a time, will provide broad powers to the Health Minister to make public health orders and will create an independent pandemic management advisory committee that is made up of key human rights individuals.
Predictably, Opposition Leader Matthew Guy described the proposal as an “attack on democracy” and said he was particularly concerned about the “unprecedented” legislation that would grant Dan Andrews such extraordinary powers. Mr Guy has not been the legislation’s only critic, particularly within the legal profession.
The arguments against the pandemic legislation
As previously reported by Lawyers Weekly, the Victorian Bar Association has been one of the legal profession’s strongest critics against the legislation. Immediate past president Christopher Blanden QC said the bill lacks the “appropriate checks and balances to ensure the proper exercise” of the “extraordinary” powers.
Mr Blanden said he was particularly frustrated with the government for naming the Victorian Bar as being part of an “expert reference group” that discussed the legislation. He clarified that rather than take part in any comprehensive review of the bill, there was a 45-minute meeting that only briefly touched on the issue.
In a more recent statement, new Victorian Bar president Róisín Annesley QC added that the proposed amendments address low-priority issues and not the most fundamental problems with the bill: “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.”
Full article
