SUBJECT | Biosecurity Act | 27 September 2022
LIAM BARTLETT: Dan, good morning to you
DAN TEHAN: Morning, Liam; great to be with you.
BARTLETT: Good to talk to you, Dan. Look, it's an interesting call. I've got to say it's a brave call. I mean, you're saying, now, with hindsight, perhaps we overdid it slightly.
TEHAN: That's right. We passed the Biosecurity Act in 2015, and it had two parts to it. There were requirements around dealing with animal health issues, for instance, things like outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease etc. And that has been fairly uncontroversial. But part of it also dealt with these human health issues, and it was the passage of that bill in 2015, which was then used to enable people to be vaccinated against their will. That's what the laws enable to be done —now, we didn't obviously do that —but you can also specify that people have to go into specified medical facilities, that they have to wear specific clothing, that they have to tell information about their neighbours. Now, there might be a need for these laws in very, very exceptional circumstances, but the problem with the Act that was passed in 2015 there is no oversight of the minister who has these powers; in this instance, the health minister. And as a former chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, whenever we put through major pieces of legislation which gave excessive power, in those instances, it was usually 12 intelligence agencies; we also made sure that there was parliamentary review; in some instances, specific clauses would sunset so the government would have to re-legislate them, or at least there would need to be a review. And my strong view is we need to look again at this 2015 Act of parliament and put more checks and balances on the power that it gives the health minister.
BARTLETT: Yeah, that's interesting. So, you think the lack of parliamentary oversight was a big mistake? It just makes it too powerful. But why do you have these thoughts now, then? Why, having been sort of part of the apparatus of that and gone along with it, obviously, you had too along party lines, but why now? Why have you decided to speak out about it?
TEHAN: Well, the point of it is that it was unanimously voted on in the parliament —went through both the House and the Senate —everyone voted for it in 2015. I'm positive that most people didn't actually know what they were voting for and the excessive powers, or the extreme powers, that they were giving the Health Minister. Now through the pandemic, we learned about those powers. We've seen them in use. And it has to be remembered that when you look around the world, Australia's response, while not perfect in terms of saving lives, was as good as any other country globally, but I think all of us were surprised at the powers that were given to one particular minister, the health minister, through this act. And even he was surprised by the powers that it gave him. They don’t go to the Prime Minister. They don't go to the cabinet. They go to one individual minister, and there are no checks and balances to that.
BARTLETT: In this case, it did go to the Prime Minister, too, although we didn't know it at the time because he swore himself in secretly.
TEHAN: That's right. And one of the main reasons that that happened was because the Health Minister wasn't comfortable with the powers that were unilaterally bestowed on him and no one else. So, ultimately, in the end, that led, I think, was probably one of the reasons why the Prime Minister swore himself in to be obviously a co-author, if you like, of those powers. Now, that I think points to the fundamental problem, the laws, the act itself, needs more checks and balances, and we need to look at whether the health minister and the health minister alone should have such power under one act.
BARTLETT: Well, you know, there have been multiple calls for a Royal Commission into the way that COVID was handled, you know, right across the board, perhaps, you know, this could be this review could be even part of that?
TEHAN: Well, it could be. I think the act itself should be examined by a Joint Select Committee of Parliament made up of Senators and House of Reps members to look specifically at this act. When we put through major national security legislation, we have the intelligence and security committee that plays that role and puts the checks and balances in place. We need a select committee similar to that to look at this and put the appropriate checks and balances in place. And I think that there would be a bipartisan agreement if such a committee were established to look at this because I think all of us don't think that one minister should hold so much power in this country.
BARTLETT: That's a very good point. Dan, I'm not sure how much you know about what's been happening here in the West, but we had we've been having a similar debate, albeit much smaller, well even last week, we had legislation go through the State Parliament, which, similar to the Biosecurity Act, gives an enormous amount of power, delivers that into the hands of one person, the State Emergency Coordinator, which in this case is the police commissioner. It's a very similar thing when you outline some of those powers. Very similar thing to what we now have here in existence in WA.
TEHAN: My hope would be that with those powers would come proper oversight, parliamentary oversight, potentially judicial oversight, because no one, no one individual should hold those powers without appropriate checks and balances. And my hope would be that the Western Australian Parliament would put in place those checks and balances to make sure that that authority can't be abused because if it's similar to the powers that have been given in the Biosecurity Act of 2015 nationally, I just don't think it is appropriate that one person should hold that amount of power in this in this country. Because it could be misused for the wrong reasons, and it would take too long for that misuse to be found if you don't have proper oversight. And it should be both parliamentary and it should be looked at to see whether judicial powers of oversight should be used as well.
BARTLETT: Well, not only that, it protects the person involved, doesn't it? In this case, the health minister that you're talking about, those checks and balances protect them also?
TEHAN: You're absolutely right. And Greg Hunt, the health minister at the time, had concerns about the power it bestowed on him, and I think any individual in Western Australia would have similar concerns. And the more checks and balances, obviously, the more confidence the person would have to be able to do their job.
BARTLETT: Just finally, Dan, do you think a Royal Commission will get up? Do you think the government being in power now, will have the motivation to put that in place on COVID?
TEHAN: I'm not quite sure whether it will be a Royal Commission or not, but my hope would be those specific aspects of the response will be looked at. I mean, there is no doubt that this Act, the 2015 Biosecurity Act, needs to be looked at. I think acts and laws both federally and at the state and territory level worked with each other during the pandemic also need to be looked at because, I think, in some instances, they were at cross purposes, in some instances, too much politics came into it and not enough focus on saving lives and saving livelihoods. So, I think looking at how laws work across both federal and state and territory jurisdictions would be very useful, and I think we need to do it because we will face a pandemic again, and the more we can learn through what we've been through, the better.
BARTLETT: Well, that's what the scientists tell us, don't they so, yes, it would be good to learn the lessons. Absolutely. Dan, thanks very much for having a chat with us this morning. Appreciate your time.
