A Coat of Paint

Update: The Vic Bar Association has since released a press release confirming my opinion here. They point out that under this bill, individuals who are detained [are unable to] seek a merits review of their detention by an independent court. [All they have available to them is an ]Internal review by a person who is employed by the Department of Health[, which] is not an acceptable independent safeguard.

The government in league with the crossbench is pretending that they have addressed the substantive criticisms of the Pandemic Bill which cedes to any Premier, under their own determination, emergency powers.

Let’s compare the criticisms as presented in the Open Letter with the proposed amendments released yesterday evening:

  1. The Minister can make a pandemic order while a “pandemic declaration” made by the Premier is in force. Given the low threshold for the making of this declaration (s 165AB) and the fact that COVID-19 is unlikely to be going away any time soon, we can expect a pandemic declaration to be in force for the foreseeable future.
  2. Once a pandemic declaration is in place, the only other requirement for the Minister to make a pandemic order is that he or she must believe that the order is “reasonably necessary to protect public health”. Not only is this threshold low, but it does not need to be satisfied objectively — it is enough if the Minister subjectively believes that the order is “reasonably necessary”.  This will make it practically impossible to challenge the merits of the order in a court.
  3. The content of a pandemic order is unlimited — the Minister can make “any order” (s 165AI(1)). The Minister is effectively given plenary legislative power.
  4. Pandemic orders are expressly allowed to “differentiate between or vary in its application to persons or classes of person identified by reference to an attribute within the meaning of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010” (s 165AK(4)).
  5. Pandemic orders can be disallowed by Parliament only upon recommendation  by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) or if the government has failed to table the order (s 165AU). But SARC cannot inquire into the merits of the order — it can only recommend disallowance on narrow grounds, effectively limited to the order being beyond power or being incompatible with human rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (s 165AS).
  6. The Bill’s Independent Pandemic Management Advisory Committee is not a significant check on the Minister’s power. The Committee will be wholly appointed by the Minister him or herself (s 165CE) and will have no power to rescind or amend the Minister’s orders.
  7. Yet the Bill confers on these authorised officers extraordinary powers, again effectively for the foreseeable future. If authorised by the CHO, they will be able to, among other things, “take any action or give any direction, other than to detain a person, that the authorised officer believes is reasonably necessary to protect public health” (s 165BA(1)(a)).

Do the amendments address any of these concerns? No, they don’t. The first involves simply adding the very low threshold of ‘reasonable grounds’ on the Premier’s declaration. Given what the QCs say in point 2,

Not only is this threshold low, but it does not need to be satisfied objectively — it is enough if the Minister subjectively believes that the order is “reasonably necessary”.  This will make it practically impossible to challenge the merits of the order in a court,

a declaration would be very unlikely to be challenged on the merits in a court.

Secondly, the reduction of the reporting period of pandemic order from 14 to 7 days and the reduction of 6 to 4 for the tabling requirement is inconsequential. It does nothing to limit the power of the Minister or Premier; it is purely administrative. Thirdly, enabling Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) to consider the order when it is made rather than tabled is again inconsequential. As the Open Letter already admits, SARC

cannot inquire into the merits of the order — it can only recommend disallowance on narrow grounds, effectively limited to the order being beyond power or being incompatible with human rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (s 165AS). In any event, the governing party may command a majority in the SARC, as is the case at the moment. Thus, in reality, Parliament’s ability to control the Minister’s power through disallowance is going to be very limited or non-existent.

In other words, SARC will never practically countermand the decisions of the Minister or Premier. Fourthly, “the application of pandemic orders based on characteristics, attributes or circumstances of persons must be relevant to the public health risk” is again inconsequential. It follows from point 2 of the Open Letter, the relationship between characteristics, attributes, or circumstances and public health risk will be entirely a subjective matter for the Minister, again: Not only is this threshold low, but it does not need to be satisfied objectively — it is enough if the Minister subjectively believes that the order is “reasonably necessary”

There is simply no change here from what we knew of the bill only a couple of weeks ago to today.

The entire negotiation with the crossbench is a charade. Political theatre a couple of days out in which the crossbench, who a few weeks earlier had no problems with the bill, and with Perfidious Dan trying to pretend that he is ‘listening’, establish a narrative that they have reigned in the Pandemic bill while not having done so at all.

14 thoughts on “A Coat of Paint”

  1. it is enough if the Minister subjectively believes that the order is “reasonably necessary”.

    Even less. It is enough for the Minister, as the Premier’s ventriloquial dummy, to merely state that they believe the order to be reasonably necessary. Actual subjective belief is not required.


    Report comment

    11
  2. “…it is enough if the Minister subjectively believes that the order is “reasonably necessary”.”

    I believe it is “reasonably necessary” that all premiers should obey federal law and international treaties on human rights that the Australian Government has signed up to.
    Apparently, the HRC, the NSW Omsbudsman and the NSW Governor do not believe it is their duty to investigate claims of such breaches. Note: NOT rescind or otherwise “fix” any such issues, but merely investigate if such claims appear to be valid. Nope, no-one’s job to protect the public from State Gov overreach, or even have a look at circumstances to determine if there is a good case or not – you’re on your own.
    Maybe I need to identify as a transgender gay Aboriginal and then they’ll have a look…


    Report comment

    13
  3. pretending that they have addressed the substantive criticisms of the Pandemic Bill which cedes to any Premier, under their own determination, emergency powers

    Funnily enough, as soon as I saw the headline and brief excerpt below from this morning’s Oz, I instinctively knew nothing of the sort had happened:

    Andrews strikes late-night deal on pandemic laws
    Late-night agreement sees most controversial aspects of pandemic legislation amended ahead of debate in upper house today.



    Report comment

    3
  4. What’s to prevent this legislation from being misused to delay, interfere with or even alter the outcome of an election?
    Postal voting only as opposed to the ballot box in a “pandemic”?
    Of course these power would never be misused in such a way by “Red Shirts” Andrews.
    And I have a cheap bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.


    Report comment

    14
  5. Was it a coincidence that I read today in the Herald Sun that licensed brothels are now to be allowed to serve and sell alcohol and the number licensed brothels is to be greatly extended. One might think this was the trade-off for the Sex Party’s support of Dan’s Bill. It certainly has nothing to do with health>


    Report comment

    14
  6. Andrews strikes late-night deal on pandemic laws
    Late-night agreement sees most controversial aspects of pandemic legislation amended ahead of debate in upper house today.

    One might think the three numpties hadn’t had time to look at it, and just discovered some unpalatable detail, but no…

    https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/andrews-government-secretly-negotiating-permanent-pandemic-laws-to-replace-state-of-emergency-20210611-p5807t.html

    They’ve had plenty of time to peruse the details (in their secretive meetings over the last six months), and didn’t seem to have a problem with the tyrannical implications, until the protest last weekend.


    Report comment

    15
  7. The real issue in Victoria is that even with a target as big as Dan, there is nobody in the opposition capable of hitting it. The only thing they have hit was a house while DUI.


    Report comment

    4
  8. Its not paint Dover but whitewash, comes off in the next shower. Anyway it makes no difference what laws are made they do whatever they want with no recourse.


    Report comment

    3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *