LAST week the State Government’s proposed replacement to the soon-to-expire State of Emergency (SOE) hit an unexpected roadblock as its expected passage through the Upper House was suddenly found to not have the numbers to pass.

Debate on the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management) Bill began in the upper house on Tuesday afternoon and went well into the night.

When debate resumed on Thursday and it became clear the decision of former Labor member and now independent, Adem Somyurek would vote against the bill and give a 20-20 result, the debate was instead deferred for two weeks.

Bills need a clear majority to pass the Upper House - a tied vote is not enough.

The new bill was created by the State Government to replace Victoria’s SOE laws which have been in place throughout the pandemic but have had to be renewed every four weeks, however they will expire on December 15 and cannot be extended again.

If the bill is passed in parliament, it will give the government greater legal powers to implement lockdowns, mandatory mask-wearing measures, as well as vaccine mandates and curfews.

The proposed bill included the shift of power in declaring a pandemic from the chief health officer to the premier, while the state’s pandemic status could be declared for up to three months at a time with no outer limit.

The health minister will have broader powers to make public health orders, and an independent pandemic management advisory committee will be formed and made up of public health, human rights and community representatives.

Some discussions with crossbenchers were held in respect of amendments, including reductions of fines and faster publication of public health advice (seven days down from 14), but no changes were agreed to, and without the numbers to pass the upper house, the government decided to defer the vote to at least November 30.

In the past, the government has relied upon the support of crossbenchers, Andy Meddick of the Animal Justice Party, Fiona Patten of the Reason Party, and Greens leader, Samantha Ratnam, to get bills through the upper house, but the reappearance of Mr Somyurek in parliament last week and his public commitment to voting against the bill is a dramatic twist.

Daniel Andrews said the new legislation had been in the works for quite a while and wanted to incorporate new knowledge into it.

“Last year we committed that we would bring forward pandemic-specific legislation that was fit for purpose, and that is exactly what we have done,” he said.

“We have learned a lot over the past two years of a once in a generation pandemic, and we are applying these lessons to manage pandemics in the future – while maintaining our ability to rapidly respond to outbreaks.”

Many Victorians have criticised the proposed legislation and protesters have responded to the bill through ongoing protests outside parliament house last week.

Saturday saw one of the largest protests in Melbourne’s history with well over a hundred thousand peaceful protesters taking to the streets to walk from Parliament House in Spring Street to Flagstaff Gardens.

The crowd protesting the bill consisted of a wide range of demographics, young and old, and included veterans and many ethnicities; flags from Greece, Poland, Croatia and the USA were seen in abundance and the mood was positive, even with the anger against the government.

WWII veteran John Murphy, despite being in his 90s, took part and made a short speech in which he thanked the crowd and said he wanted freedom here in Australia.

“Australia has been willing to send troops to all parts of the world to help people become free wherever they might have been under oppression,” he said.

“To now be fighting oppression here in our own country … it's saddening.”

Mr Andrews responded to the protests on Sunday by calling the crowd “ugly thugs” and insisted the government was doing what it had to.

“I will not be deterred from the work I’m doing to keep every family safe, that’s the work that I’ve been given to do (and) that’s the job that we have to do,” he said.

He labelled the protests as “ugly behaviour” and said they didn’t represent the vast majority of Victorians – adding that it was about keeping all Victorian families safe.

“I wouldn’t want the appalling, disgusting and 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 a second dose … I’m proud of those Victorians.

“Debate is fine, disagreement is fine, (but) what we have seen in recent days and weeks is not fine, it is awful, but it does not speak to the values, views and conduct of the vast majority of Victorians.”

Despite the very large crowd size, there were no arrests reported by police and it is unlikely with such levels of public opposition, crossbenchers will deal with the government to see the bill passed without major changes.

Victoria is at about 90 per cent of people full vaccinated and the further easing of restrictions were enacted last week, however some restrictions for unvaccinated children aged 12-17 were added to the list, along with unvaccinated adults.

Unvaccinated adults can now only access essential retail and there are further definitions from the State Government when it comes to mixed businesses.

Essential retail includes bakeries, bottle shops, butcheries, car washes that can operate in a fully contactless manner, dry cleaners, fishmongers, fruit and vegetable stores, grocery stores, laundries, newsagents, markets, pet stores, petrol stations, pharmacies, post offices, retail shopping centres, supermarkets, and vehicle and mechanical repair service premises.

Restricted retail included beauty therapy premises, and hairdressers.

General retail included all other retail selling or hiring products and providing services, that do not meet the definition of “essential” or “restricted” retail.

Book shops and clothing stores are examples of general retail.

 With mixed businesses, the general rule is that the more restricted setting is the one that the State Government defines as the classification.

Where a general retail or essential retail premises also provides restricted retail or hospitality services in the same premises (for example, where a bookshop also serves food or coffee), then customers must be fully vaccinated to access these services.