The opinion that COVID-19 lockdowns were excessively severe and even tyrannical is gaining traction worldwide. Human Rights Watch, for instance, accuses the UK government of setting aside human rights for political convenience and has criticized its alarming contempt for the rule of law. In Italy, Piero Stanig and Gianmarco Daniele have suggested that in tackling a highly contagious disease that primarily spreads indoors and endangers the elderly, the government’s worst move was to confine the elderly to their homes and deny citizens access to the safest place of all—the outdoors. Furthermore, the authors of Fault Lines, published on October 20, 2022, criticized Australia’s response to COVID-19, claiming that too many lockdowns and closed borders were caused by policy deficiencies instead of effective disease surveillance, contact tracing, and communication of the need for preventative measures, including mask-wearing and social distancing. Professor Gigi Foster argues that the Australian government failed to conduct an analysis of the costs and benefits of lockdowns, estimating that the cost of lockdowns exceeded their benefits by at least 68 times.
Although Australia has always prided itself on safeguarding people’s rights, there is a plausible reason why the government’s spending was so excessive. The quasi-dictatorial powers that the executive enjoyed were made possible by the particularities of the Westminster system of government in Australia. According to Professor Augusto Zimmermann, the insufficient implementation of the separation of powers doctrine in Australia, which dictates that power should be split among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, enabled members of the executive to gain almost unrestricted power as long as they have a parliamentary majority. In other words, Professor Zimmermann dubbed it an “elective dictatorship.” Delegating legislative power to unelected health administrators is also a contributing factor.
Although there is judicial review, it is typically confined to evaluating the compatibility of laws with the Constitution. Since Australia’s Constitution does not have a bill of rights, it is nearly difficult to challenge the COVID-19 oppressive measures as violating a constitutional right. Furthermore, the legal system’s implementation of the theory of the sovereignty of parliament has resulted in the view that rights derive from the legislature. However, this theory overlooks the concept of natural law, which postulates that rights are inalienable and often overlooked until a situation arises that highlights their significance. In conclusion, governments should conduct cost-benefit analyses of lockdowns and closed borders, which have caused tremendous hardship on Australia.