It's the legislation dominating public discussion in Victoria.
A new set of proposed laws, designed to govern the state's future response and powers in the case of a pandemic.
The Victorian Health Minister has been keen to promote this new bill as increasing transparency, but there have also been plenty of critics.
On the city's streets, a small group of people wheeled out violent imagery on the steps of parliament as part of a protest against the bill, while legal groups and the state's ombudsman have been calling for greater oversight to be included in the legislation.
These are the key details involved in the legislation and proposed changes.
Why is the Victorian government pushing these laws?
The state government created this new bill to replace Victoria's State of Emergency laws, which were used during the COVID-19 pandemic, but had to be renewed every four weeks.
The laws give the government the legal basis for lockdowns, mandatory mask-wearing, vaccine mandates and curfews.
The Victorian government said the new laws would be "purpose built" for a pandemic response.
The legislation includes key changes:
- It shifts the power to declare a pandemic from the chief health officer to the premier
- It allows the state's pandemic status to be declared for up to three months at a time with no outer limit
- It provides broad powers to a health minister to make public health orders
- It creates an independent pandemic management advisory committee, to be made up of public health, human rights and community representatives
Initially the legislation proposed fines of up to $90,500 for people putting the health of others at risk by breaking a health order, and fines of up to $452,500 for businesses, while it also included protections for how QR code data could be used.
Victorian Health Minister Martin Foley on Tuesday said the pandemic legislation responded to the state's experiences from the past two years.
"The lessons that we've learned over that period of time are now reflected in this bill."
What are the critics saying?
After the legislation was announced, the Opposition Leader Mathew Guy described the legislation as "an incredible attack on democracy".
He said he was particularly concerned by the power granted to a premier to declare a pandemic, calling it "unprecedented".
He wasn't the only critic.
Earlier this month, the Victorian Bar Association, which represents more than 2,000 barristers, raised its concerns about the legislation.
In its submission, The Bar said it was concerned about the "extraordinarily broad" powers to be granted to a health minister to make orders, as well as the lack of an outer time limit on how long pandemic laws could be enforced.
The Bar also criticised a proposal for a government to have up to 14 days to publish advice it had been given from a chief health officer.
What are the agreed amendments?
Late on Monday, the Victorian government agreed to a number of changes to its proposed legislation after conversations with crossbenchers, including:
- Significant reductions in fines for breaching public health orders
- A stronger threshold for declaring a pandemic
- Strengthened human right protections
- The right to protest to be enshrined in regulation
- Guaranteed resourcing for an independent oversight committee
- Faster publication of public health advice (within seven days of a pandemic order being made, down from 14)
- Clarifying that pandemic orders targeted on the basis of personal attributes must be relevant to the public health risk
What has been the reaction?
Animal Justice Party MP Andy Meddick explained his support for the amended legislation.
"These changes will ensure Victoria has the most transparent and accountable pandemic management framework in the country," he told journalists.
Human Rights Legal Centre legal director Daniel Webb also backed the amendments.
"These are the sorts of safeguards that ultimately help government make better decisions and also help build and maintain public trust in those decisions,'' he said.
But others remain concerned.
Victoria's Ombudsman Deborah Glass told ABC Radio's Virginia Trioli on Tuesday that "we haven't seen the question of independent oversight properly addressed".
She examined decisions made by the chief health officer during the pandemic as part of her role, but said she wouldn't have that same power if decisions were instead made by a health minister.
Ms Glass said there needed to be a judicial body with oversight of pandemic decisions.
"I think that would give comfort to people who are concerned about the level of extraordinary power that will reside within an individual," she said.
Victorian Bar president Roisin Annesley said the proposed amendments "largely address low priority issues".
She said significant issues remained.
"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," she said.
That view was echoed by the Law Institute of Victoria's president Tania Wolff, who said the amendments had failed to deliver "effective oversight and scrutiny" over the "extraordinary powers" bestowed by the bill.
From the business quarters, the Australian Industry Group's Tim Piper said businesses were still concerned by the powers vested in authorised officers, or bureaucrats.
"They're concerned to make sure that the level of authority that premiers have, that health ministers have, that bureaucrats have, that authorised officers have, do not go too far," he said.
The opposition's list of planned amendments include a requirement that pandemic declarations be limited to one month and subject to a majority vote in both houses of parliament.
For his part, Premier Daniel Andrews has accused the opposition of playing "political games" at the expense of the state.
"You've got the opposition who are wanting to have it both ways," he said.
"Standing with people who are anti science, anti-vaccination while at the same time talking about the place being closed."
How does the bill compare to other states and territories?
This feels like a great question, but the University of Melbourne's William Partlett said in many ways it wasn't actually that useful.
Other states and territories are still operating under legislation that is years old and doesn't take account of the lessons we've learnt during the past 20 months.
He said Victoria's new bill in many ways might "set a model" for the reforms he expects will be made in jurisdictions across the globe.
"This is a debate that's happening across the world; Victoria's one of the first jurisdictions to be doing this," he told ABC Radio Melbourne.
With that caveat noted, he believed the bill was "an improvement on what exists in New South Wales", where the Act is around 11 years old.
The Victorian government has noted the current NSW laws have more relaxed triggers for invoking emergency powers, and fewer limits on the length of a declaration compared to the new Victorian bill.
"I fully expect and would hope New South Wales would redraft and create their own fit-for-purpose law, taking into account a lot of what they've learnt," Dr Partlett said.
Dr Partlett said the Victorian bill had some "real innovations", including the "excellent" privacy protections around contact-tracing information, more transparency on health advice and clear responsibility held by the health minister of the day.
"I think every state in Australia is going to have to redraft ... and that's why this is such a significant piece of legislation for Australia, because Victoria is largely going to set a model," he said.
But he agreed with those calling for a more rigorous oversight system, as well as an overall review of the law's effectiveness after 18 months.
"We want to try and get some independent review ... to ensure that these powers don't get misused," he said.
"I mean, I think it's unlikely that they would be, but we need to have those protections in place."
What's with the protests outside parliament?
While debate among lawyers and the opposition over the finer points of the bill has been playing out, protests have been staged outside parliament.
Over the weekend, the numbers swelled as thousands gathered outside Flinders Street Station chanting "kill the bill".
On Monday night, those protests took on a darker dimension as violent imagery was wheeled out and death threats were levelled against the Premier.
Several protesters have told the ABC they and their families have been affected by vaccine mandates, and anti-vaccination views were promoted at the gatherings.
Some opposition MPs have addressed or joined the protesters, including Shadow Treasurer David Davis last week and Upper House MP Craig Ondarchie this week.
Loading
The Opposition Leader condemned the extreme and violent elements of the protest displayed on Monday night as "stupid".
"Of course we condemn it," Mr Guy said.
Swinburne University senior media lecturer Belinda Barnet said the same group that helped mobilise thousands during the crescendo of Melbourne's anti-lockdown protests was behind the latest demonstrations.
Dr Barnet said the group had shifted its focus from lockdowns to vaccinations as the pandemic progressed.
"As a movement, [they are] really quick to respond to what people are afraid of, and kind of latch onto that and leverage it," she said.
"I don't think these protesters are very clear on the particulars of the bill or politics in general."
She said its message was being amplified by far-right extremist groups like the Proud Boys, and politicians such as Craig Kelly, who spammed Australians with misleading vaccination information as Victoria battled its third wave.
She said the conspiracy theories like QAnon, which had been present throughout the protests, along with the increasingly violent language, appeared to have been inspired by the movement in the United States.
"To return to QAnon, you do see, or have seen in in America quite violent metaphors and images being used — you know, to hang journalists, for example — at some of those rallies in America," she said.
"And possibly, those types of metaphors and images have been imported, along with the conspiracy theory."
Dr Barnet said it was "really upsetting" to see some politicians aligning themselves with the hard-core protesters given the strong links to conspiracy theory movements.
"Because these people are not ... just 'freedom fighters' as they say, there's a whole host of conspiracy theories and really unhealthy and potentially dangerous beliefs there that I don't know that they want to align themselves with," she said.
What happens now?
Debate on the bill continued until late last night in Victoria's Legislative Council.
It's expected to continue again on Thursday, but the government hopes crossbench support will see the bill pass through the upper house before the end of the week.
Loading form...
https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiZ2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFiYy5uZXQuYXUvbmV3cy8yMDIxLTExLTE3L3ZpY3RvcmlhLWNvdmlkLXBhbmRlbWljLWJpbGwtZGFuaWVsLWFuZHJld3MtcGFybGlhbWVudC8xMDA2MjM5NzLSAQA?oc=5
2021-11-16 19:16:21Z
1176413902
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Debate around Victoria's COVID-19 pandemic bill has turned ugly. Here's what you need to know - ABC News"
Post a Comment