Hansard debates

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (18:08): I rise to speak on this bill with an unsurprising sense of deja vu. Just six months ago we put through this place the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (State of Emergency Extension and Other Matters) Bill 2020, at the time an unprecedented expansion of government state-of-emergency powers, and now here we are again doing exactly the same thing. A blanket extension of the powers was unacceptable last September. It already went far beyond the limits imposed by the original Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. That act carefully balanced the increase of executive power and the consequent reduction of Parliament’s role with potential emergencies in public health. At the time of that debate we were promised by the Premier these restrictions would be in place for not one day longer than they needed to be. Now, at that time some of us were pretty sceptical about that statement. It was already obvious to us that this Premier had acquired a taste for presidential government and would miss no opportunity to continue to sideline the normal democratic process, but it does raise a serious question for some on the crossbench. Some of you, a minority in fact, gave the Premier the benefit of the doubt last time, and he has done nothing in the time provided to remedy his reliance on emergency powers.

I am sure the same deception will not work again. As they say: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. It really should be quite straightforward. For anyone with any sense of history, any regard for the parliamentary process, the continued reliance on emergency powers is an anathema, particularly from a Premier who has demonstrated in his handling of the crisis to date a deadly arrogance and stubbornness which only confirms how dangerous it is to concentrate power in the hands of an individual. As someone once said: power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

An alternative is possible. We have already heard members remark today that the successful situation in New South Wales has been implemented without the requirement for state-of-emergency legislation, which damages democracy, deters investment and prolongs despair. They have a track-and-trace system that works and a hotel quarantine system which is doing the heavy lifting for the whole nation. Countless thousands of Victorians would not be back in Australia today if it were not for the brave and balanced approach taken by New South Wales.

In the year now since the first of these emergency powers, what has been done to replicate this success? It cannot be beyond the wit of the Premier and his vast team of public servants and consultants to construct a system which provides accountability and transparency consistent with our democracy and does so without requiring a perpetual, confidence-destroying and liberty-threatening state of emergency. Where is the targeted legislation? If new powers are required, new laws needed, they should be brought to this place and discussed in full. Instead the Premier still wants to rely on sweeping emergency powers which put back our recovery further. Where are the moves back to ordered, everyday government? It seems that the longer this government sign off on the state-of-emergency powers, the longer they want complete control over the populace.

Businesses and Victorians want normality back, and a continued state of emergency undermines this. As I said before, who in their right mind would invest in a state under emergency powers? Some of us warned that the Public Health and Wellbeing Act amendment passed by this Parliament was writing the Premier a blank cheque. The shocking job loss and business closure toll now make it clear that it is Victorian businesses who are footing the bill. Messages matter, and a unilateral declaration of a further nine months of the state of emergency is a disastrous message. I ask you all, the crossbench in particular, not to acquiesce in sending this message. This Premier has operated to date via control and fear, and extending these powers will simply amplify this fear and continue to justify the government’s flawed approach.

Yet again it seems that the Premier has successfully called our bluff. His failed contact-tracing system and hotel quarantine procedures have produced a situation where certain emergency powers may still be required, and his failure to introduce any legislative alternative means that as responsible politicians we are once again required to allow some form of extension. That is why I support the Liberal-Nationals opposition and Liberal Democrat amendments tonight. We must give him the absolute bare minimum: short extensions requiring parliamentary approval and predicated on full transparency of the public health advice.

He has done absolutely nothing to earn our trust for any longer extension, and he should be held to account for his approach. This is why, with respect, I fail to understand the approach of those crossbenchers we have heard from who plan to support the bill as proposed by the government. Firstly and fundamentally, why do they now suddenly believe that the Premier will do what he has so utterly failed to do to date and produce alternative legislation? As the quote I read previously notes, we have heard this vow before. Why does Ms Patten believe him now? She makes great play of the promises she has been sold, but those are in her memory, not here in black and white in this bill. She is right to push for these assurances. But where is the commitment?

This brings me to my second point. Accepting all of Ms Patten’s arguments, which I liked, why does she not seek the extra assurance provided by the opposition amendments? What are the downsides? Really? Is it really that much of an imposition to require Parliament to vote on extensions of the state of emergency? Is it really that onerous to require full disclosure of the advice that the state-of-emergency measures are based on? I would say that respect for the proper constraints on power in our system is worth that inconvenience. Try telling those whose businesses and livelihoods have been ruined that it is just too inconvenient or difficult for the government to come back to Parliament to seek extensions. And why nine months? All the wonderful things we have heard the government is about to do should have been done already. But even starting today, it does not require nine months. So why give the nine months and have no commitment in this legislation? It just does not make sense.

I would urge those members again to see that their positions are entirely consistent with the opposition amendments tonight. In fairness, I should note the one concession which has been won here—namely, that made by Dr Ratnam’s reported concern about COVID fines for children. In this case, to her credit, the commitment is there in black and white, but I do have to ask: this discretion on fines for those under 18, how many does that affect? We have been told recently that the collection of fines is not even being enforced. Is that tiny concession really worth handing a nine-month carte blanche extension to the government? Surely it should have been the starting point, not the sum total of a deal.

My doubts about government by emergency powers do not simply relate to the arrogance, stubbornness and trustworthiness of our Premier or the sidelining of Parliament; they are also about the process itself. Ministers are renouncing all responsibility for government. Yes, experts are important, but by definition they are experts in their own area. It is the job of government to gather advice, to consult, to consider and to respond to the totality of that advice. We heard an alarming example of this tendency this morning. In response to my criticism about the economic misery wrought by our recent circuit-breaker lockdown, the Minister for Small Business confirmed comprehensively that the Andrews government had abdicated all responsibility for management of the pandemic, subcontracting it to public health advisers and shutting down any alternative perspectives. She could not have been clearer that the only thing that mattered was the public health advice.

Government is about difficult choices. It is about taking advice from all sectors and deciding what is best for the community as a whole. Public health advice will always be about public health. It is the job of government to weigh that risk against other competing economic, social and health demands. By definition, the chief health officer has a public health perspective. It is the Premier’s job to take the wider view and to make the judgement call on where the health advice fits with the bigger picture. His total failure to do this is the clearest reason why Victoria has not only had the worst health outcomes in Australia in this pandemic but has done most to damage its own economy, its social fabric and the long-term mental and physical health of its population. The medicine has clearly been worse than the disease. It is also anti-democratic. Governments are hired and fired by the people. They are accountable to them in a way that public health advisers are not. Enshrining this further extension of state-of-emergency powers is enshrining this abdication of responsibility. It is wrong in principle and, as we have seen last year, it has proved wrong in practice.

In conclusion, when this legislation highlights a broken promise that the powers would not be extended, it shows an anti-democratic instinct. In extending emergency powers it shows a failure in planning, either in learning from other jurisdictions or in introducing alternative legislation to provide the necessary powers, and it shows an abdication of responsibility. Giving complete primacy to public health advice—not treating it as one part, albeit an important part, of the picture—is irresponsible.

I heard with interest the arguments of the crossbench members who have pledged their support, but I urge them to think again. All of the aims they outline are worthy. The outcomes they seek are the right ones. Yet every single one could be achieved and indeed would be more likely to be achieved by this house retaining control of the process, not writing a blank cheque. Now is not the time to reward a Premier who has shown this elected chamber, and by extension the constituents we represent, nothing but contempt. I urge this house to support the coalition amendments, and I urge you not to extend the state of emergency for another nine months. That would be totally in contempt of the Victorian population, and you would be irresponsible if that was the path you took.