Thursday, 28 October 2021

 Mr NORTHE (Morwell) (14:45): I rise to speak on the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021. First, can I commend every single Victorian who has been working on the response to the pandemic—your ongoing work and efforts are valued and respected, and we say thank you.

Prior to providing my own comments on the bill itself, I want to briefly give an overview of what the bill intends to do. The bill seeks to replace the need for regular extensions to the state of emergency under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. According to the government, it is seeking to introduce these measures to provide for a fit-for-purpose pandemic management framework comprising powers appropriate to ensure Victoria is equipped for the ongoing COVID-19 response as well as future pandemics. However, there are many who disagree with this assertion, including me. As has been previously debated in this chamber, the current state of emergency was extended until 15 December 2021. As such, it will have been in place for approximately 21 months, with the act being amended for periods of time along the way to allow for extensions to the state of emergency.

Supposedly the bill establishes mechanisms to improve the transparency of pandemic decision-making and the accountability of decision-makers to Parliament and the community, but again this is questionable, as articulated by a myriad of persons, including legal experts. For the purposes of persons reading my speech, the government states that the bill provides for the use of the same powers currently available under the state of emergency through chief health officer orders. However, this specific bill provides the Minister for Health with broad powers to make pandemic orders where reasonable and necessary to protect public health on the advice of the CHO.

I want to also highlight my disappointment with the actual passage of this legislation. As a matter of course legislation is introduced in this chamber one day, second read the next day and then members of Parliament, industry groups, businesses and Victorian citizens are given a minimum of two weeks to digest the legislation, consult with the community, consider the legislation and receive a briefing before coming back to Parliament to debate and vote upon said legislation. Even for the most mundane and unimportant legislation this two-week window is afforded to members of Parliament and the community, which is vitally important for the above-mentioned reasons. Yet here we are, arguably with the most important legislation this Parliament has had to consider, certainly in this term of Parliament, effectively only having one day to read hundreds of pages of information and then somehow consider all the same information, consult with our communities and come back today to debate and vote upon a bill—a bill that affords extraordinary, almost open-ended powers to the Premier, the health minister and health officials in Victoria, who can in turn impose restrictions and orders upon Victorian citizens that significantly affect their employment, their health, their emotional and mental health, their social networks and their liberties and freedoms. On this basis alone I will oppose the bill.

Generally we are informed on the Thursday prior to a Parliament sitting what bills will be debated in this place, and this was again the case last Thursday. However, the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021 was conspicuous by its absence, because the said bill had not even been introduced into the Parliament. Now, I had expected the government would introduce a bill this week to extend its state-of-emergency powers beyond 15 December, but to introduce, second read, debate and vote on the bill in three consecutive days is simply unacceptable and undemocratic. To say I was surprised, shocked and stunned late on Monday when the process for this week was laid out for such important legislation is an understatement, and many people have sent via emails and messages their same opinion.

As Independent members of Parliament—as the member for Shepparton noted in her contribution—we have not had the time to read and consider the full legislation, and we simply do not have the people and the resources to do that. This really is unsatisfactory and undemocratic. As a basic principle I am not opposed to the fact that governments should have the powers to deal with emergency events. Within reason of course they should have the ability to apply restriction of movement where it is absolutely necessary. In the case of the pandemic, Victorians have endured 21 months of heartache with some of the toughest lockdowns the world has seen, so you can understand the intention to minimise virus outbreaks across Victorian communities, but at the same time no-one can argue that those restrictions have not impacted people financially, emotionally, mentally and socially.

Whilst I appreciate decisions in response to a pandemic are tough ones for governments to make, I have always believed that you also need to understand the perverse or unintended consequences of such decisions. Many a medical expert has flagged to the government that the impacts of the restrictions are causing harm to children, adults and seniors in various ways. Children, for example, missing out on school, social activities and sport, must be considered in the decision-making process, as must the welfare or employment of adults, who are now caught up in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated classes of people that have been created. In my members statements this morning I mentioned about business owners’ employees having to grapple with the inconsistency and illogical aspects of the rules that are now in place—whether one is vaccinated, unvaccinated or single-dose vaccinated. The anxiety of business owners is palpable as they deal with confusion and mixed messages. Our seniors who are in aged-care settings or at homes are missing out on those social interactions with loved ones. So there are impacts right across the board. But my point has always been that if the government imposes restrictions on its citizens, it has to also consider the outcomes of those same restrictions and the effect they will have on people financially, emotionally and socially, and unfortunately I believe that has been forgotten in many respects.

I have always opposed the state-of-emergency powers not on the basis of the rules and restrictions not being warranted but for the fact they give government and health officials unfettered powers for extended periods of time and without proper oversight and scrutiny, including by the Parliament itself. This bill does nothing to allay my fears. I do hear the call that the Parliament will receive various reports from independent committees about decisions made, but again, the point is that Parliament itself has no influence over major decisions that affect Victorian citizens.

Two points of concerns are that it enables the Premier to declare a pandemic where the Premier is satisfied there is a serious risk to public health arising from a pandemic or disease of pandemic potential and to provide declarations to be renewed for up to three months at a time with no outer limit on the total duration of a declaration. Those two provisions alone should cause alarm to Victorian citizens. It seems that the government is seeking even further powers, almost open ended, without having to come back to the Parliament for consideration of serious restrictions and directions imposed upon Victorian people. And whilst I do not profess to be a medical expert, the facts are the federal government say that vaccinations are voluntary, yet the state government through its state-of-emergency powers has mandated that the majority of Victorians must be vaccinated, and without having to come back to the Parliament for debate, consideration and voting upon. Something as serious as mandating vaccination for Victorian citizens not coming back to the Parliament for debate and voting I find troubling.

Others have had a lot to say about this bill, including the Victorian Bar president, Christopher Blanden, QC, who said the following, and I quote:

The Bill confers on the health minister in a practical sense an effectively unlimited power to rule the state by decree, for effectively an indefinite period, and without effective judicial or parliamentary oversight …

Does that sound familiar? Yes, because this is exactly what I have been saying throughout the whole state-of-emergency debate. Mr Blanden also went on to say:

That doesn’t add up to good democracy in my book. It’s a disgrace. What’s the urgency?

When you have the Victorian Bar expressing such significant concerns about a bill that affords the government such powers, then in my view all Victorians should be concerned. As Mr Blanden noted, and also the member for Shepparton, what is the rush? The government does have the time to allow members of Parliament, legal experts and Victorian citizens to further consider and consult about the merits or not of this bill. Because this is not happening, one can only be cynical of the government’s motives and intentions.

In conclusion, in my opinion this bill should not be debated and voted upon today and it should not be supported, for the reasons that I have consistently conveyed, and they are: it continues to give the Premier, the health minister and health officials unfettered powers without proper legal and parliamentary oversight for an unlimited time and whilst not understanding the real harm caused to Victorian citizens financially, emotionally and socially.

 Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (14:55): I rise to join the chorus of opposition to what we call the pandemic legislation, as it is commonly known. That opposition, I must say, is not just from the Liberals and from The Nationals; that opposition seems to be very widespread. I note and I want to draw attention to the Greens’ contribution, where they actually noted many, many flaws and the fact that this is not a perfect bill. They even commended suggestions to the government and acknowledged that it was rushed through. They cautioned and in fact stated that the government had probably weaponised people with mandatory vaccination and the possible ongoing mandatory requirements for all of next year, even when we are at 90 per cent vaccinations. They pointed out so many flaws with the legislation, they pointed out also the lack of time that we have had to consider this bill; however, it is very disappointing that despite all of that they have gone on to actually trust the government on this and support it.

This is a government that tells us constantly that we should trust it. Now, it is very difficult to actually trust them when they have had spectacular failure after failure with the management of the COVID virus. We have had the most deaths. We have had the most lockdowns, both in the number of times and the number of days. I am quite disturbed when government members, who I am sure have really not got their heads around the bill either and have just been told what to say, say that we are whipping up hysteria. Well, I have got to say that a lot of this hysteria is coming from people who are quite notable, who have been able to look at this quite closely with an analytical and a legal mind. I have had a lot of people talk to me, and I have comments that I want to read out. Suzie said, ‘This has complete disregard for democracy’. Liz: ‘This could be the beginning of the end of democracy’. Annette: ‘Horrendous attack on our democratic principles’. Such is the concern with this bill out there.

I want to talk about the timeliness and the time lines associated here and the lack of time that we have had to look at the bill and understand it. I went to the bill briefing—half an hour, so not enough for when we have quite a substantial bill, quite a hefty bill, and in fact the longest second-reading speech I have seen. We were given half an hour. A few concerns were noted in that, not by us but by the people giving the briefing, acknowledging that this was quickly developed, really rapid work, once they realised there could no longer be an extension to the state of emergency. So if this was put together hastily, too rapidly, the likelihood that there are inconsistencies and flaws is quite high, and you would think that not just the opposition would need time to scrutinise it but so would external parties who are concerned about human rights. They should have an equal amount of time to examine this.

I first got the bill 2 hours before the briefing—2 hours before that half-hour briefing. Apparently there was that leaked summary, that leaked bill that got out to the newspapers. We asked at the bill briefing, ‘Well, okay, if that was a leaked one’—and they could not attest to that being the final version—‘what were the changes?’, and they could not tell us that. I find it very difficult to understand how somebody in the department who has pushed the wrong button then cannot tell us what version they released and what the changes were. Were there 42 changes, 242 changes or one change? You would think that they would be able to tell us that, but they just could not.

Despite this bill being rushed through and quickly developed, we know the government began consultation on it with a select group of crossbenchers in March. That is eight months ago. Members of the government said that we had not requested a briefing at the very time when it came to our attention that they were offering a bill briefing to discuss it with this select group of crossbenchers. We said, ‘We’d like that as well’, and they said, ‘Sorry, this is not for you’. I have heard consistently from members opposite that we did not ask for this. Well, we did ask for this, and they are absolute untruths that are being spouted continually over the other side in the belief that if you say it enough, it will sometimes turn into being a truth. Well, it will not.

You have got to like what has been said through Christopher Blanden, QC, who is president of the Victorian Bar. He said, and I quote, that:

… the government “grossly misrepresented” its consultation with the barristers’ peak body.

Grossly misrepresented—so here is the government saying that they have done all this consultation. In the bill briefing we asked them to provide a list of who they have consulted with and give us that understanding. Well, as of an hour ago we did not have that list, and it certainly has not been passed to me if we have it. The government constantly says there should be a bipartisan approach to this pandemic. Whilst that would be ideal, that requires the government on their part to speak to us, to bring us on and let us know what is in this bill. They are saying this is everything that we are calling for. Well, that is wrong. I think it is totally unfair for us not to have had more than half an hour of a bill briefing and then with, as I have said, this fat bill—the longest second-reading speech ever—to be expected to debate it and to pick up every flaw and scrutinise it to the degree that it should be. That is really quite extraordinary.

There are a number of issues that I just want to quickly raise. Under this bill we can have a pandemic declared, and it does not even need to be in Australia. The Premier makes a declaration—well, that is fine, but this needs parliamentary scrutiny. It does not need one person to have powers vested in them that allow them to do everything. Non-binding recommendations from a committee—what is the point of the committee if these are not binding? And with these recommendations that are made, I do note that these review committees are all appointed by the government, so the lack of independence there is of some concern. There is no limit on the number of times that this three-month period can be extended. The regular checks and balances that should be put in place are not, and the oversight mechanism needs to have true independence, but it does not.

I am going to quote again the president of the Victorian Bar, Christopher Blanden, and he has had a lot to say about this. He has had a lot to say in an article in the Age and on 3AW this morning. He questioned the urgency. Why are we having to push this through so quickly? I know if the government had their way, they would have this through the upper house this week as well. Well, hopefully that will not happen and we will have a little bit more time, but he questioned the urgency. Unless the government has plans to continue state-of-emergency powers well into next year, there should not be this amount of urgency. He questioned the powers—the significant powers impacting the rights of citizens should have greater checks and balances—the fact that the minister can do anything, and the fact that there is the power for citizens to be detained without a charge indefinitely. I am fairly sure I saw a report this morning that the Minister for Health was unaware of this. Well, if the Minister for Health is unaware of this, then there are serious flaws—if external people are picking up some of the things that the Minister for Health has not, and I think I am correct in saying that. He went on:

This is a bill that fundamentally interferes with the rights of citizens in some very basic ways. It abrogates the privilege against self-incrimination and you’ve got detention at the whim of the minister. It’s just appalling stuff.

For the president of the Victorian Bar to be saying such things, this government needs to take note. They know that it is being rushed through. They know that there has not been the time for the department to really make sure they have crossed the t’s and dotted the i’s. They know they are rushing this. A professor at Melbourne Law School and the president of Liberty Victoria have concerns that there should be sufficient opportunity to consider the bill carefully. Well, the government is doing everything to make sure that it is not being considered carefully, and this is an appalling way to govern. They have never had any intent of bringing the opposition along with them. They have kept us in the dark the whole time, they have rushed this through and this is a very poor piece of legislation.

 Ms WILLIAMS (Dandenong—Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) (15:05): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

 Ms KEALY (Lowan) (15:05): I rise to vehemently oppose this bill being adjourned at the moment. We have still got 15 speakers waiting to speak on this very important legislation, which needs to be debated. We need to make sure there is appropriate scrutiny put in place, like every single member of this Parliament.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Richards): Sorry, member for Lowan, are you speaking on the motion?

Ms KEALY: I have said that I am speaking on the motion, and I vehemently oppose the motion that has been put forward. This is important legislation, not just for Parliament today but for every single future Parliament, because within it the bill ensures that the government has almost unfettered power. In fact it means that an individual minister has unfettered power over the rules of what they can put in place in Victoria, without the scrutiny which is required under a democratic process and the traditions that we hold so close in Victoria, which are the foundations that democracy is built upon. And to stymie debate when we only received this enormous tome of a bill yesterday, the first time we saw it—we still have a number of questions outstanding that we asked during the bill briefing that have not yet been responded to. We have not even got a Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee report available for this. And yet it is a bill which outlines so many potential restrictions that could be used in terrible ways in the future.

It is not just members of Parliament who are very concerned about it. I have received, as I am sure every member of this place has received, copious amounts of correspondence from constituents, from Victorians, who are deeply opposed to this legislation. They see that it will cause irreparable harm, and in the wrong hands it will cause enormous harm to the state of Victoria going forward. While we hear from the Labor MPs, ‘No, no, no, we have no intention to do that’, it is not about what you intend to do or what we intend to do, it is about future generations and who will be elected to this place in the future. Now, we know that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This bill hands enormous power to a single individual, without any scrutiny through the parliamentary process.

There should be and we should always have had throughout the COVID restrictions—where there was a shutdown even of Parliament—regular information and an allowance for scrutiny to be provided through this chamber, because that is democracy. We take the views of Victorians to this place and allow that secondary sight over rules that are being put in place. And these are rules that are making a significant difference to people’s lives. You are keeping kids out of education, family violence rates are going through the roof, mental ill health and illness is through the roof and people cannot get the help that they need. Even today we look at businesses that do not know if they can open at 6.00 pm tomorrow or not if their staff are not fully vaccinated. These are all issues that need to be debated.

Every single member—15 members that I am aware of—who has not had the opportunity to speak on the bill should be given that right. There is no reason for this bill to be rushed through, except if you have got something to hide. And that is what our concern is: you are now truncating debate. You have truncated the ability for us to consult with the community, for everyday Victorians to look over this bill and see how it will impact on their rights. And you have cut all of that short.

Now, this is not by any means at all saying we do not want to debate the Windfall Gains Tax and State Taxation and Other Acts Further Amendment Bill 2021, because we have deep concerns about that that we want to put on the record too. But we do want to make sure that we have every single right and opportunity to provide feedback on and apply scrutiny to the pandemic laws, because we do not want ‘classes of person’ to be used inappropriately. We do not want people to ever—ever!—be discriminated against because of the colour of their skin or their gender or their religion or their political views. We got feedback very, very late—in fact I have only just received it in the past hour—that the Premier would not be able to defer an election. However, within this bill the Premier would be able to lock down the state and not allow certain classes of persons to leave their home and therefore they could not attend a polling booth and cast their vote. That is within the allowances of this bill.

And it is not just us saying that. We have had so many people, as we have heard in many contributions today, who have referred to the president of the Victorian Bar, who has raised deep concerns about this bill. We need to make sure this bill is appropriately scrutinised and that we have proper debate around it not just so we can have our voices heard as members of Parliament but so everyday Victorians can have their voices heard.

 Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (15:10): I do wonder today if the president of the Victorian Bar is ruing the time that he spoke up about this bill, only to be misrepresented by these people in the opposition. Now, this is a very important bill; that is true. But it is the facts of the bill that are important. Those opposite came into this place and told us previously that the Premier could actually ensure that we did not have an election, and now we are hearing that that was confusion and he cannot.

We do have other important bills that we need to get to. The Windfall Gains Tax and State Taxation and Other Acts Further Amendment Bill 2021 is an amazing bill that we all wish to support and speak on today. The issue we have here is there is no issue with the parliamentary process, and there certainly has not been. We continue to hear the babbling from those opposite wasting their time, but they cannot waste the Parliament’s time.We need to be able to debate other issues as well, and I am standing here in disbelief at some of the things I have heard this afternoon.Surely it is reasonable to suggest that people on this side of the house and members on the other side of the house have the opportunity to speak on other bills today as well without this grandstanding from a useless mob across the aisle.

 Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (15:12): If you want to hear anything about why Labor are who they are—they want to stop a debate that is about defending democracy in Victoria to introduce a new tax because they want to make sure that they can get the money that they have already spent and wasted. Now, the one thing that I wanted to speak on this bill for is there are 15 people on this side who have not had the opportunity. That is 15 local communities that have been cut out of this debate.

The one thing that continuously gets raised in this debate by those on the other side, who have got their speaking notes directly from the Premier, specifically says they have got oversight. The oversight put in place is a committee appointed by the Premier. It can be dismissed by the Premier at a decision by the Premier, and he does not have to take the advice of that committee, the Premier.

Let us put into perspective how well that has gone in history. Some of you may know Jane Garrett. I am sure some of you on that side know the member of the upper house who went and spoke to the Premier and said, ‘I don’t support legislation for the CFA’—gone, sacked, out, no longer in cabinet. Some of you may remember Jenny Mikakos. She spoke up against the Premier—gone, sacked, no longer allowed to speak up. Some of you may remember Lucinda Nolan, a former CEO of the CFA. She spoke up against some of the issues that the Premier wanted to bring in—gone, sacked, gotten rid of by the Premier. You may even remember Joe Buffone. Joe Buffone was an amazing person in our community for emergency services in Victoria. He spoke up against the government—gone, sacked, gotten rid of. You may remember the entire CFA board, who spoke up and said they did not want anything in relation to what was happening in the CFA at the time—gone, sacked, dismissed, disrespected—absolutely and utterly disrespected on the way out. The then Minister for Emergency Services, the member for Monbulk, came out when some of these people spoke up and all he did was try to tear apart their character. That is how Labor operates. That is what we are trying to stop.

Why don’t we want this legislation? It is directly because of the evidence and the actions of the Victorian Labor Party, who have continued to prove time and time again that every time someone speaks up against the government or against the Premier—sacked, gone, dismissed. That is a major and massive concern for people in the community. Here is the example today. Now 15 people—who represent 15 communities, which represent nearly a million people in our community—do not have a voice. They have been silenced. Every person in my electorate has been silenced by the Labor Party in Victoria.

This is the biggest bill to come through this house in my 11 years, and I heard the member for Warrandyte say that about his 15 years. I will assume there are people on the other side who have been here since the 1990s, and it is the biggest bill in the time they have been here as well, because every person on that side knows the power of this bill—every person. And if you do not know the power of the bill, you only need to refer to the Victorian Bar, which has written a letter on this:

Over the past 24 hours, the Victorian Bar has become aware of a bill to amend the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2020 … in respect of, amongst other things, pandemic management.

…

The Minister for Health’s Bill Summary claims the Department and an “Expert Reference Group” … undertook targeted consultation …

Another lie by Labor—a 45-minute Teams meeting with a promise to catch up to discuss it again, and at that meeting there was nothing around the pandemic legislation that is before the house today.

Acting Speaker Richards, I know you represent the area where I live, in Casey and Cardinia. I know the member for Narre Warren South was very vocal a second ago in talking about the communities of Casey and Cardinia. Let me assure you that if residents of Casey—

Mr T Smith interjected.

Mr BATTIN: No, he does not live out near Casey. He lives in St Kilda. Let me assure you, if you wanted to come for a drive through those areas during the pandemic, you would have seen businesses closed, the schools closed, the kids struggling with mental health and all of the issues that are happening down in that area—the businesses that are slowly sliding away because they cannot get support from anyone. They do not want legislation that is going to allow lockdowns for 2022. When the Premier has come out and specifically said that the new thing is going to be a third dose, there is nothing surer than this legislation is his plan to lock down Victoria until he gets his way with a third dose in 2022, and we cannot accept that in Victoria.

 Mr MAAS (Narre Warren South) (15:17): It gives me great pleasure to rise to support the motion of the Minister for Women. The Shadow Attorney-General over there still does not have his law degree incidentally.

Members interjecting.

Mr MAAS: No, no, he wants to be the AG. He wants to be the AG. He cannot go and do the study—

Members interjecting.

Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Acting Speaker Richards, already we are seeing from the member that they love attacking characteristics. They are dying to use this legislation to attack attributes. Of course people who are uneducated are going to be locked down. You are going to use this legislation to lock down all sorts of people, aren’t you?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Richards): Member for Warrandyte! What is the point of order?

Mr R Smith: That is what you are going to do, and that is why we are so opposed to it.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Richards): Order! What is the point of order? There is no point of order.

Ms Williams: On a separate point of order, Acting Speaker—

Members interjecting.

Ms Williams: If we could have a little bit of quiet, thank you. I am quite concerned by the conduct and the violence that we just witnessed from the member for Warrandyte. I would seek some guidance from the clerks or indeed the Speaker about that conduct and the status of that conduct in this environment. I think it is worth review at some point. And just to put it on record, the member for Warrandyte stood up, shouted at the Acting Speaker and then proceeded to thump his fist on the perspex repeatedly. I think given the work that this Parliament—more so this government—has done particularly on the issue of violence against women, that kind of behaviour in this setting is just utterly unacceptable. I would ask if at some point the Speaker could review the footage of that and work out an appropriate sanction.

Mr Battin: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, in relation to the accusations that have been cast from the other side, there was nothing along those lines. The member for Warrandyte was trying to get the attention of the Acting Speaker, who failed considerably to stop and get the point of order. I note the member for Dandenong, the Minister for Women, who has all of a sudden decided to find her voice, was very silent when we had threats against Jane Garrett of axes in the head, and no-one on that side of Parliament decided to stand up once. It is about time you have some consistency in there and start defending all of that. We actually had simply a member standing up and trying to get the Acting Speaker’s attention, and she failed in the role. If you do not want to be in that position, as I have said to other Acting Speakers, then do not go into that chair if you are not going to take consideration of both sides of the chamber.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Richards): If there are no more speakers on the point of order, I will refer the matter to the Speaker for his review.

Mr MAAS: Look, if the opposition were absolutely genuine in wanting to have further speakers on the subject bill, if they were absolutely genuine, then they would be appearing in this house every other time that bills are spoken to in this house. How many times have we come to this place to debate bills and there has been no show from the other side? That is right—get up, leave the house, because that is the behaviour that has been going on in this place.

We set out the government business program true to the forms and the procedures in this house, and that was done at the beginning of the sitting week, as it always is. The truth of the matter is that, through negotiations with this side the house, time has already been extended for you to be able to have speakers turn up and speak to the bill. That has already happened, and it is an opportunity that has been afforded to you. To come here now and to use these technicalities and to use these technical procedures in the house to your own benefit, to quote the Minister for Racing, so that you can play footsies with the anti-vaxxers—that is right—so you can do other stuff like—

Members interjecting.

Mr MAAS: No, that is not what we do. Anyway, I support the motion that the Minister for Women has put forward.

 Ms VALLENCE (Evelyn) (15:22): The debate should not be adjourned on Labor’s draconian pandemic laws because otherwise the government will be stifling the voice of nearly three-quarters of a million Victorians—hundreds of thousands of people in my electorate and in the electorates of my colleagues, gagged from contributing to this debate, the tens of thousands of people who have contacted me and other MPs, fearful of the power that the Premier is trying to give himself with this bill. Labor should not be gagging debate on the fact that the Premier wants a new law to transfer all power to him and the Minister for Health to impose lockdowns even if there is no virus and apply restrictions based on race, religion, sex, age, pregnancy, marital status or any other characteristic—and that is precisely what is written in this bill, and that is a risk. If it is not accurate that the government is going to use it in that way and the Premier will not abuse this ability to discriminate, then why is it in the bill?

This bill is the modern-day equivalent of erecting a Berlin Wall between all Victorians. The Berlin Wall was a symbol of communism, as we know, trying to destroy freedom—but freedom prevailed. Why is Labor so desperate to gag the debate on Labor’s draconian pandemic law? I think it is because Labor is worried. They are worried that Victorians will wake up. They are worried that Victorians will wake up and see the extraordinary overreach in this pandemic law, presenting a clear and present danger to freedom in this state. I say, ‘Tear down this bill’.

The debate should not be adjourned because there has been inadequate activity for scrutiny of this bill on this issue. Over the course of the last 19 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in our country, where is a single—other than this one—other state or territory government saying that there would have been fewer infections or fewer outbreaks, that infections would have been less severe or that there would have been fewer deaths if only the government had more power to restrict the liberties of their citizens? Nowhere. Victorians know only too well, sadly, that this Andrews Labor government exploited it at every possible avenue—every possible avenue available to it over the past 19 months—to go harder, faster and longer in their lockdowns. For example, seven days of lockdown turns very quickly into 77 days of lockdown—and for what? The worst outcomes—the absolute worst outcomes in our nation—and the most deaths from COVID in our nation.

Further debate should not be adjourned, because of the fundamental failure of the Minister for Health’s department to even have any idea what is in their 120-page bill. When they were asked whether the Premier would be able to use the rolling three-day lockdown provision in the bill to stop and stifle elections, the minister’s department did not know. In the briefing yesterday they could not answer that very basic question. Potentially there could be a curtailing of a democratic election because of the attributes and characteristics that are described and provided for within this bill. That would be astronomically bad.

Debate should not be adjourned because gagging MPs on this side only stifles the voices of Victorians who want further debate on the Premier giving himself the ability to detain Victorians without reason, without explanation and without the ability to appeal to the courts. If by chance the detention is found to have been unreasonable or unnecessary by one of the Premier’s own appointed bureaucrats, it will not be found unlawful, and that is wrong. Adjourning this debate removes the ability for Parliament to debate granting this government powers to interfere with citizens liberties. Such powers should not be granted unless absolutely necessary, and when granted the limits of powers should be strictly defined. This is a very, very long bill, but those powers are not strictly defined. There is no expiry.

The duration for their exercise should be limited. That is not in this bill. Public scrutiny should be close and immediate, and parliamentary control should be absolute. The proposed legislation fails every one of those tests. I will oppose this bill, the Liberal-Nationals will oppose it and we will repeal it if elected in 2022.

House divided on motion: