Login
Coronavirus biosecurity laws supported but only as last resort: LCA
The Law Council of Australia has issued a statement supporting biosecurity control orders but says it should only be used as a last resort.
Tony Zhang
Attorney-General Christian Porter recently told parliament that the laws – which were active from the official “listing” of the coronavirus on 21 January – will be “strange" and "foreign” for Australians who could experience the legal implication for the first time.
“We absolutely support action by the government to keep Australia safe and stop the spread of potentially dangerous infectious diseases,” Ms Wright said.
“However, powers under the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) are extraordinary and must be approached with the utmost caution and should only be used as a last resort.”
Mr Porter has alerted Australians the government may be forced to use the laws under the Biosecurity Act in the months ahead.
Cases of human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus/COVID-19 are increasing in Australia and according to Mr Porter, could result in biosecurity laws being used on a larger scale, meaning Australians could find themselves detained by medical authorities if they present symptoms of the pandemic.
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), as of Wednesday, there are currently 41 cases in Australia with the coronavirus continuing to spread in NSW, with a third case of human-to-human transmission confirmed overnight, bringing the total number of infections in the state to 15, whilst Victoria and South Australia have confirmed new cases.
Under changes made to the Biosecurity Act in 2015, government authorities designated by the chief medical officer can make a “human biosecurity control order” to require an individual to do or not do certain things.
The Attorney-General said any orders would have to be “the most effective and least invasive means” of dealing with the situation, and be considered “justified and reasonable in all the circumstances”.
However, according to the LCA, the act does not have the types of safeguards and independent oversight protections afforded to our law enforcement and security agencies’ exercise of coercive powers.
Ms Wright said these orders can have a “significant impact upon a person’s liberty”, such as isolation or restricted movement.
“While control orders in cases of infectious disease may be justified, there is no requirement for a person to actually be infected or for the officer to even reasonably believe or suspect that the person is infected, or may be infected, with a LHD, before a control order can be made,” Ms Wright said.
“Control orders can potentially have a significant impact upon a person’s liberty as they can, for example, require isolation or restricted movement measures to be in place.
“While the use of such a power may be necessary to limit the spread of potentially dangerous infectious diseases, the threshold for determining a LHD and then for imposing a control order needs to be carefully considered to ensure it achieves this purpose based on reasonable grounds.”
