Hansard debates

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (20:26): I rise to speak in opposition to the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (State of Emergency Extension and Other Matters) Bill 2020, which seeks to expand and extend the extraordinary executive government powers vested in the chief health officer under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. And I reiterate: we are voting to extend the powers, in an unprecedented fashion, of an unelected bureaucrat. It does seem unbelievable, but that is what is happening here. But like many before me, I pay tribute to and acknowledge the work of those on the coalface: the health workers caring for patients and those farmers, transport operators and supermarket employees who are keeping us fed.

I just want to comment on Dr Cumming’s contribution. She is quite correct. We have all been treated like lemons here. We got this bill just today, when the minister basically moved it. So bad is this process of consultation that not only did we not get the bill and the crossbench not get the bill but the overseeing body, the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, was not even going to meet until some of us ensured that they did. But I can tell you that no thorough assessment has been able to be made of the enormous implications for human rights of this extensive legislation by that committee. That is a serious problem I think for this chamber, that we are voting on something where we cannot actually be assured of what the implications for those human rights are.

I also want to acknowledge the thousands of Victorians who have reached out to people like me begging for this legislation to be defeated. Their stories of anger and desperate anguish are compelling and heart rending. Mr Meddick’s scathing criticism of this email constituency process is hypocrisy in the extreme given that he embarked on a massive spamming process of councillors in the Colac Otway shire recently, thousands in one night which jammed all of their emails when they were trying to feed people locked down in a crisis in the Colac area and also manage a fire that had occurred in their municipality. So to talk about people sending emails on this issue when he had actually organised the process himself in another area seems to be hypocrisy in the extreme.

The Premier, up until last night, had no plan or road map out of the mess for which he and his hapless ministers are responsible. Also—Dr Cumming is quite correct—this is the place, or should be, of accountability and scrutiny. I totally reject the idea that only experts can tell us how we can live our lives and how we can manage something. This is the place where scrutiny should occur of executive government, and we should not hand over that responsibility to so-called experts—unelected bureaucrats. That is not acceptable in this democratic process.

Anyway, Mr Andrews says he might have a plan. I think he has been under considerable pressure even from his own federal colleagues but also business leaders and others. And we are told that if we are obedient enough we might be enlightened, or partially enlightened, with a plan on Sunday. So on Sunday, Father’s Day by the way, we might learn about Mr Andrews’s plan—that get-out-of-jail card, perhaps. But, like on Mother’s Day, do not think you will be able to give Dad a hug on Father’s Day, because you could well be fined for giving Dad a hug.

As we speak, we actually know of no plan or road map, but we are expected to vote on this legislation to extend the government’s powers without any indication of how they intend to use those powers. What a disgrace. What blinding arrogance. What abuse of power. What disrespect for the people of Victoria and those of us here today elected to represent our constituencies. It is breathtaking to think that any elected member of this chamber could support this legislation as presented. However, it appears, unfortunately, that some might, and the government might get its way. That is most unfortunate.

The Minister for Health is here now. Perhaps she could detail us Dan’s plan. We would all be happy to hear about it, and that might help us in our vote later tonight. We have been subject here to the harshest dictates in the world, but we have actually got the worst results in this country.

Mr Ondarchie: The worst health minister.

Mrs McARTHUR: Mr Ondarchie says we have got the worst health minister in the country. Some were keen to throw mud at New South Wales for their Ruby Princess issue, but I am sure there are some now who would be happily swapping places with us in Victoria. Victoria has had its own Ruby Princess. It was hotel quarantine—a Ruby Princess without the ship. New South Wales has had 52 deaths from this virus, while Victoria—well over 500. How can we possibly consider giving this government more power when it is irresponsible and has the worst results in the country? Victoria has had a total of 19 000 cases while New South Wales has just 4000, Queensland just over 1000, Western Australia 650, South Australia 460, Tasmania 230 and even fewer in the territories.

On 16 March the Premier declared the first state of emergency, having threatened extreme measures just six days earlier in preparation for the spread of the virus in Victoria. No-one could have foreseen, however, the extent of the extremity of these measures empowered by this legislation. Victoria has become victim to some of the most draconian restrictions in the world—restrictions that violate the most basic principles of human rights and individual liberty. This legislation seeks to allow the Victorian government to continue to enforce these measures for a further six months. This state must be unlocked so that businesses can reopen and lives and livelihoods can be restored.

The government has persistently sidelined the Parliament and essentially ruled by decree. First they refused to have a non-government-controlled Public Accounts and Estimates Committee inquiry into the response to the pandemic. Then they canned sitting days and evaded scrutiny. They used the chief health officer to suggest rural MPs would be infecting the countryside if we turned up to our workplace in Parliament House, but somehow it is okay today. They refused to brief the opposition and most of the crossbench, but we still have no idea what facts and data their advice is based on. When we finally returned to Parliament, the health minister arrogantly refused to answer questions or demonstrate any modicum of ministerial responsibility. If for no other reason, I implore the crossbench to vote down this legislation because the government has continuously insinuated that you and the constituents whom you represent are unimportant and expendable.

The outrageous extended time frame for these emergency powers is not my only concern with this legislation. The insertion of the word ‘reasonably’ before the word ‘necessary’ in clause 6 of the bill is completely unmerited and unacceptable. The threshold required for the use of such serious executive powers under this act should not be lowered. If the chief health officer needs to enforce stringent and authoritarian restrictions, it should be predicated on an evident and objective, serious risk to public health. It should be absolutely necessary, not merely ‘reasonably necessary’. Similarly, the expansion of the definition of ‘serious risk to public health’ in clause 3 is of equal concern. No matter how many times the Premier tells the daily press conferences that these restrictions will not be in place for one second longer than they have to be, by making this legislative change it is obvious that the opposite is true.

Perhaps there is still the potential for a serious risk to public health to arise if asymptomatic community transmission leads to the resurfacing of the virus as it has in New Zealand—a testament to the reckless strategy of pursuing elimination. But this is not a present, serious risk to public health. To make such a change to this legislation is offensive to common sense and truth, not to mention a free society. The government should never have open slather to use these extraordinary powers even when the threat is negligible or non-existent. Clearly medical professionals even agree. The chairman of CSL and GenesisCare, Brian McNamee, told the Financial Review:

Where are the checks and balances, the expert independent advice, the data, the scientific explanation including objectives and finally the pivotal role of parliament?

The legislation provides none of that, but instead a blank cheque for more unscrutinised and extreme restrictions. Other medical professionals have noted:

… it is our professional opinion that the stage 4 lockdown policy has caused unprecedented negative economic and social outcomes in people, which in themselves are having negative health outcomes. In particular, it has caused or exacerbated depression, anxiety and other mental health issues, as well as contributed to domestic violence, through an extreme and unjustified disruption to family, social and work life—

restrictions which have inflicted enormous suffering on the lives of Victorians. Clearly governments both state and federal agree with this sentiment, because the cost to mental health is extreme, and they have allocated nearly $2 billion of taxpayer money to the issue of this mental health crisis caused by the lockdowns and the treatment of people in Victoria especially.

And is it any surprise when livelihoods are being destroyed and businesses are collapsing. Since the start of the pandemic police have uncovered more than 5000 domestic violence offences. Young people will suffer most from these lockdowns. They have effectively lost a year of education and been deprived of employment opportunities. One of Melbourne’s most successful restaurateurs, Chris Lucas, said:

There are 20,000 small cafes and restaurants in this state. And as an aggregate we employ about 300,000 mostly young Victorians.

It’s already too late for a lot of them. There’s talk that at least 20 per cent to 30 per cent, maybe even higher will not reopen their doors.

That is the number of restaurants and cafes that are closing. The cost of this pandemic also and the way that we have managed it so badly in Victoria are immense. Four hundred thousand jobs have been lost in addition to those lost in the first wave, and a month ago estimates suggested that the state debt was set to hit $60 billion as a consequence stage 4. Already under this government we have seen the state debt rise from $21.7 billion to $40.3 billion prior to the coronavirus. Each working-age adult in Victoria now bears the equivalent of $9213 in state debt.

This bill should not be passed. This bill is a disgrace. This government does not need extenuating powers for a minute longer. And I urge all members in the chamber to cast their vote in opposition to this extraordinary piece of legislation which we have had no time to properly analyse or scrutinise. At this time I would like to distribute the coalition amendments as moved by Mr Davis.

Opposition amendments circulated by Mrs McARTHUR pursuant to standing orders.

Following speech incorporated pursuant to order of Council earlier this day: