How new strain could help pandemic Bill’s cause

As it goes to parliament this week for the final sitting of the year, it is desperate to push through its controversial pandemic management Bill.

If it can’t do so, and can’t arrange an extension to the current state of emergency which is due to expire in two weeks, the government will be unable to impose Covid restrictions.

The government had arrogantly assumed it could simply wave the Bill through after spending much of the year negotiating with three key crossbenchers to win their votes.

However, political naivety, or incompetence, failed to account for the potential return of aggrieved former cabinet minister Adem Somyurek to parliament. That scenario transpired, Somyurek’s opposition to the Bill killed the government’s planned majority, and it has been desperately negotiating for over a week to try to find another vote.

Under the Bill, the premier would have the power to make a pandemic declaration following consultation with the chief health officer, and extend it in three-month blocks with no limit. The power to make special orders would also be transferred from the CHO to the health minister.

It would give the government virtually unlimited capacity to restrict movement, ban public gatherings, close businesses or order quarantine requirements as required. And the power to declare a pandemic would exist even if there were no cases of a specific disease in Victoria at the time.

There has been widespread debate about the proposed laws since they were first unveiled a month ago.

The Victorian Ombudsman, legal bodies the Law Institute of Victoria and the Victorian Bar, as well as civil liberty group Liberty Victoria have all raised questions about the Bill. Even the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission raised concerns.

All agreed the laws were desperately needed, and a vast improvement on the current legislative framework for managing pandemics. But all wanted changes to ensure better protections for Victorians.

And they got some — several minor changes to the Bill — but still Victorian Bar president Róisín Annesley, QC, said the amendments did not go far enough to protect the rule of law. The major issues, she said, included the lack of effective parliamentary control over pandemic orders and the failure to provide for an independent review of authorised officers’ decisions.

Those issues remain, with the government concedes that more could be done to address them during consultations with crossbenchers.

Now, as the government remains locked in negotiations for a last-minute solution to the deadlock, the Omicron variant will be a powerful negotiating tool. Not just with crossbenchers, but in trying to quell rising public opposition to the Bill, which has led to mass peaceful protests over successive weekends.

The two crossbenchers most likely to flip their opposition to the Bill, Transport Matters Party MP Rod Barton and Sustainable Australia’s Clifford Hayes, want wholesale changes. Essentially they want it rewritten.

But that will take time and the government will no doubt seize on Omicron as proof that time is short.

Already Omicron has caused some countries to shut their borders to several southern African countries. Early indications suggest it is more transmissible than Delta, and that current vaccines may be less effective against it. Confirmed cases have been identified in South Africa, Hong Kong and Botswana.

South African Health Minister Joe Phaahla has slammed international “kneejerk reactions” to the variant as “unjustified”.

The World Health Organisation has also urged caution against hastily imposing travel restrictions, calling for a “risk-based and scientific approach” to the reintroduction of restrictions.

It has also warned it will take a few weeks to understand the new strain.

Just how Victoria responds to the new variant will pose a bigger challenge to the government this week than the passage of its pandemic Bill.

Already all new overseas vaccinated arrivals into Victoria will be required to quarantine at home for 72 hours.

The swift response is a wind back on recently eased restrictions in a bid to buy time to determine the actual threat posed by Omicron.

Which other restrictions might follow? Until now lockdown has been the go-to response for dealing with outbreaks.

But after six lockdowns, Premier Daniel Andrews promised no more statewide lockdowns.

“We’re not having statewide lockdowns, we’re not having citywide lockdowns, because people have gone and done what we’ve asked them to do,” he said.

“Now we’re delivering what we said we’d do.”

Omicron is not yet here, and there is no such outbreak. But should it arrive, just how will Victoria respond? One thing is for certain, it will need some form of pandemic management laws.

And while the government will be able to seize on Omicron to push its pandemic laws through, with time of the essence it appears backed into a corner. And that leaves the crossbenchers it’s now desperately negotiating with in the strongest position of all.

— Shannon Deery is Herald Sun state politics editor

Shannon DeeryState Politics Editor

Shannon Deery is the Herald Sun’s state political editor. He joined the paper in 2007 and covered courts and crime before joining the politics team in 2020.

More related stories

Opinion

National security is PM’s trump card

Peter Dutton saying exactly what he thinks on a subject that really matters — the threat from China — is a rallying cry for a government seeking a fourth term, writes Peta Credlin.

Read more

Opinion

Agreeable Albo’s not taking the PM’s bait

Anthony Albanese is showing tremendous discipline in refusing to take the PM’s bait on nuclear submarines, the religious freedom bill and other issues, writes James Campbell.

Read more