As the debate over Victoria’s pandemic bill grows increasingly radical, protests have seen violent imagery and death threats directed towards the state’s premier, Daniel Andrews.
Mr Andrews on Wednesday lambasted the “small, ugly mob” of protesters that have been stationed outside the steps of Parliament House in Melbourne for three consecutive days.
The scenes outside parliament have featured a blow-up doll of the premier placed inside a prop gallows and noose, combined with chants to “kill” and “hang” Mr Andrews.
But the rallies are not isolated, according to experts, who say they’re the latest grievance in Melbourne’s anti-lockdown and anti-mandatory vaccine movement that has been brewing over the past 18 months.
As the conversation becomes more inflammatory, legal experts are seeking to cut through the cacophony and have a sensible debate over the bill.
The Victorian government has made several changes to its pandemic legislation to address legal and human rights concerns. Source: AAP
What is the bill seeking to achieve?
Victoria’s Pandemic Management Bill has been designed to replace the current state of emergency powers in pandemic emergencies.
The law gives power to the premier and to the health minister, rather than the chief health officer, to declare a pandemic for up to three months at a time with no outer limit.
“The bill also provides for significant executive detention powers, including by authorised officers [and] in some cases expands the power to detain,” said William Partlett, associate professor at Melbourne Law School.
But Mr Partlett said the bill provides some significant protections on privacy with respect to QR codes and “quite positive changes” when it comes to transparency.
For example, the medical advice of the chief health officer must be made public.
The bill also creates an independent pandemic management advisory committee, made up of public health, human rights and community representatives.
“This is quite a worthy and ambitious project and Victoria is the first state to do this,” he said.
Victorian Health Minister Martin Foley said on Tuesday the lessons the government had learned over the past two years had been reflected in the bill.
"We've got nothing to shy away from when it comes to the manner in which we've operated over the past two years, in what's been a really, really challenging global pandemic," he said.
What are some of the criticisms?
Victoria’s opposition leader Matthew Guy has described the legislation as "an incredible attack on democracy".
He described power granted to a premier to declare a pandemic as "unprecedented".
While Mr Partlett believes a pandemic bill is needed, he feels the legislation is incomplete - a view shared by the Law Institute of Victoria, the Victorian Bar Association, and the Human Rights Law Centre.
“Everyone's just kind of hoping that we get a few more amendments this week before they vote it into law,” Mr Partlett said.
Mr Partlett is calling for an independent, expedited review of detention orders through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal as he feels the bill gives too much power to detain certain individuals.
He also thinks a sunset clause should be introduced so that after two years, the laws need to be revisited and redrafted with full consultation.
“I still think it's too early to be drawing up permanent fit-for-purpose laws,” he said.
“It should be sunsetted and if that's not doable, then there should be an independent review."
Victorian Ombudsman Deborah Glass believes the issue of independent oversight has not been “properly addressed".
Protestors during a demonstration outside the Victorian State Parliament in Melbourne on Monday. Source: AAP
She told ABC radio there needed to be a judicial body with oversight of pandemic decisions.
"I think that would give comfort to people who are concerned about the level of extraordinary power that will reside within an individual," she said.
Why are protesters up in arms?
Debate over the pandemic bill has become a lightning rod for anti-vaxxers and the far-right, according to experts.
Mr Partlett said it’s been difficult to “cut through” the radical rhetoric and have a sensible and democratic debate about how the bill could be improved.
“There is so much misinformation out there,” he said.
Independent researcher Dr Kaz Ross said the latest protests over the pandemic bill are wrapped up in existing ideologies held by the anti-lockdown movement.
“There is a narrative of the movement that the government has managed the pandemic in an illegitimate and terrific tyrannical fashion,” she told SBS News.
“The basic premise is that the government has acted like dictators, they’re trying to control people's freedom, and they are introducing an apartheid regime of discrimination against people who are not vaccinated.”
Dr Ross said due to these core beliefs, the movement has shifted seamlessly from anti-lockdown and anti-mandatory vaccine rallies to protesting the pandemic bill.
“Whether or not they understand what the bill is, as far as they're concerned, it's a grab for power by Dan Andrews.”
Dr Ross said there are all kinds of people attending these protests from anti-vaxxers and sovereign citizens to QAnon followers and far-right figures.
“I'm seeing people saying ‘we've got four kids, we’ve lost our jobs, we don’t know how to pay our mortgage, but we're not going to get vaccinated’,” she said.
“I think what we're seeing is a core group of people who feel they've got nothing to lose, turning up every day to parliament.”
Elise Thomas, analyst at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, said she’s noticed an escalation in the frequency and extremeness in the rhetoric used by protesters in the past few months.
Protesters descended on the Melbourne Shrine of Remembrance in September. Source: AAP
“Before you might see one or two violent comments in chat but now ... the tempo on it has really kicked up a notch,” she told SBS News.
While acknowledging the need to take extremists seriously and stay alert, Ms Thomas called for nuanced reporting.
“There’s a real desire to call everyone involved in this movement a neo-Nazi,” she said.
“That is unhelpful because it increases political polarisation and increases alienation. It undermines our understanding of what's actually happening.”
What’s likely to happen next?
Debate on the bill is on hold until Thursday, with the bill expected to pass at the end of the week.
Mr Andrews said the "small, ugly mob" of protesters will not stop the government's proposed pandemic laws.
"I'll not be deterred from the work I'm doing to keep every family safe," Mr Andrews told reporters on Wednesday.
"I wouldn't want the appalling, the disgusting and the potentially criminal behaviour of a small number of people to detract away from the amazing job that so many Victorians have done.
"It is so unfair for a small, ugly mob to be taking attention away from the more than 90 per cent of Victorians who have had a first dose and will soon have had a second dose."
