Where does the authority come from to make these directions?
Health Minister Jenny Mikakos and Premier Daniel Andrews declared a state of emergency in Victoria, starting at midday on March 16, to provide Sutton, and his authorised officers, with broad powers to enforce the 14-day isolation that was the initial response to the COVID-19 outbreak.
Since then Victoria has been in a continuous state of emergency, with the emergency powers extended by Mikakos on an as-needed basis. The powers under the Act reflect measures health authorities purportedly needed to ‘flatten the curve’.
The powers are broad. Under the Act, sections 200(1)(b) and (d) stipulate that health department officials can restrict movement or “give any other direction that the authorised officer considers is reasonably necessary to protect public health” – authorised officers being Sutton or his delegates.
As such, under section 200, various health officials have enacted what they have termed Stay at Home Directions, the most recent of which was issued by Dr Finn Romanes on July 22 and which contained the requirement under subsection 5 to wear a mask when leaving the house for one of the four lawful reasons (that is, to go shopping for necessities, to exercise, for compassionate reasons and care or for essential work).
Stay at Home Directions are legally enforceable under section 193 of the Public Health Act. If someone refuses to comply with a direction, without a reasonable excuse, they could be fined up to $1652 for individuals and $9913 for businesses. Failing to comply with the rules around face coverings may result in a fine of $200.
In other words, if the health department thinks a particular direction is likely to lessen the spread of COVID-19, thereby protecting public health, they can mandate it, as long as it is “reasonable”. What counts as reasonable varies from person to person, and depends on your values. It’s here that debates about human and civil rights come into play.
