In a rare move,the government declared the bill “urgent” without the support of the opposition on Tuesday to bring on debate after agreeing to last-minute amendments.

Mr Davis described the move as an undemocratic breach of process,pointing out that just nine bills have been declared urgent since 1996,including four during the pandemic,and only ever when there was a consensus in the upper house.

Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes,the leader of the government in the Legislative Council,said there would be real consequences if the bill did not proceed and the opposition had engaged in “theatre” to ensure they were “seen to be opposing the bill at every juncture”.

Speaking for the amended bill on Tuesday night,Reason Party MP Fiona Patten said,“we should not let the perfect get in the way of the good” after continued complaints the proposal was yet to be perfected through the proposed changes.

She goaded Mr Finn by arguing pandemic powers would protect the “right to life” against COVID-19,in a reference to an anti-abortion adage.

The Premier defended the handling of the bill after key crossbencher Andy Meddick said the government had failed to communicate the positive elements of the proposed law,opening the door to misinformation and claims from Mr Guy that the bill was proof the Premier wanted to enact another lockdown.

Ombudsman Deborah Glass,speaking on Nine’sToday program,said the bill still fell short and needed a greater level of independent oversight and review.

The Law Institute of Victoria said the proposed amendments went some way to addressing their concerns,but further changes were necessary to ensure the bill is “fit for purpose”.

Institute president Tania Wolff said she wanted a strengthened independent oversight of the exercise of pandemic powers — potentially by the Ombudsman — and external review rights of detention through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The Law Institute also believes no offence under the pandemic powers should attract a jail sentence. If those changes cannot be made,Ms Wolff said the bill should include a sunset clause and expire within the next two years.

The Victorian Bar — which has been vocal in its criticism — said the government’s proposed changes still contained ineffective parliamentary and independent oversight and review rights.

“The proposed amendments largely address low priority issues and not the most fundamental problems with the Bill,” newly appointed President of the Victorian Bar Róisín Annesley,QC,said on Tuesday.

However,prominent law firm Maurice Blackburn defended the legislation. In a statement circulated to the media on Tuesday,chief executive Jacob Varghese said the bill rightly made elected officials the decision-makers over public safety,which was “how democracy should work”.

He also challenged the idea the legal community was united in its stance against the bill and added legal professionals should come together to encourage “truthful public debate”.

The Human Rights Law Centre said the amendments would help governments make better decisions and maintain public trust,but that “the law still isn’t perfect”.

The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission welcomed the amendments and their strengthening of human rights commitments.

Former Supreme Court judge Lex Lasry attacked the protesters on Tuesday,calling the display of nooses and makeshift gallows “obscene”.

“But I think we are better than that,really … Surely we are?” he said on 3AW.

Victorian Greens leader Samantha Ratnam,one of the three key crossbenchers involved in the amendment of the bill,took aim at Liberal MPs supporting anti-government protesters occupying the steps of Parliament House.

Dr Ratnam accused them of “aiding and abetting” violence and misleading protesters into believing the state was on the brink of a dictatorship.

She said this had been aided by far-right extremists and Trumpian populists who had circulated misinformation and stoked fears brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr Ratnam said MPs who had amplified the calls from the far-right instead of condemning them were unfit to hold a position of power.

“Everyone has the right to protest,but no one has the right to threaten violence,” she said.

“If the threats and the hanging nooses in the street continue to be legitimised our community in Victoria is at risk.”

Dr Ratnam said amendments to the bill fell short of addressing some of the Greens’ concerns but added further transparency and accountability to pandemic decision-making.

“The reality is there are more checks and balances in this bill than in the status quo,” she said.

On Monday night Dr Ratnam also joined the two other independent upper house crossbenchers on whose vote the fate of the bill rests in releasing a statement slamming radio “shock jocks” for “knowingly,dangerously inciting and fanning angry civil unrest with lies”.

Responding to the claim,3AW host Neil Mitchell toldThe Age he had expressed opposition on his program to certain elements of the bill,but had always argued against public demonstrations.

“I strongly deny the crossbench allegation of deliberately lying to promote rubbish like this,” he said.

“The gallows,the nooses,the threats and the Hitler images disgust me. They have no place in debate or protest in Australia.”

With Marta Pascual Juanola

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories,analysis and insights.Sign up here.