A little ray of sunshine from Australia

[GT93]

And Abbott would have been wearing budgie smugglers way back then too.

[Barney]

Ridiculous political comments aside I forgot yesterday was the anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan in the Vietnam. 18 august 1966.
Our largest loss of life battle.
Lest we forget.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Whistler]

And Abbott would have been wearing budgie smugglers way back then too.

That would have a few boats turned around to the sound of shrieks of laughter

[Whistler]

Ridiculous political comments aside I forgot yesterday was the anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan in the Vietnam. 18 august 1966.
Our largest loss of life battle.
Lest we forget.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These guys deserve our respect, they have mine even though I was against the war. My mates who went, should have been treated better by our country.

[tamada]

Think about it.
If Abbott, Dutton & Scomo were around in the 1770's, they would have turned back the boats

Gold! Pure gold.

[jackspratt]

Think about it.
If Abbott, Dutton & Scomo were around in the 1770's, they would have turned back the boats

But as an "on water operation", we would not have been allowed to hear about it for 50 years.

[noosard]

Scott Morrison says he intends to make a free COVID-19 vaccine “as mandatory as possible” once it’s available. It comes as the PM secures a deal to manufacture the vaccine.

[GT93]

As mandatory as possible? I suppose he foresaw the Australian army, hopefully not the lawless SAS, rounding up every single person in say Darwin and not releasing them until they had been vaccinated with a new and rushed to market vaccine. Then on to the next town ...

This seems a really odd position for a Tory politician. It's the kind of announcement you'd expect to see reversed the same day.

Scotty really is from marketing.

[Barney]

The Victorian chief health officer has finally admitted in a press conference that the numbers of deaths due to carona virus have been added to with people passing away with the virus and not necessarily due to the virus.
Admitted was that elderly Australian’s in ages care homes, some under final stages of palliative care, who tested positive but did not die from the virus are in the total numbers.
I’m sure this is world wide in some instances.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Barney]

The Victorian state labor leader, disregarding the fact the numbers of deaths are false, has now advised the Victorian state of emergency will extend past the constitution 6 month date of September 13 for another 12 months.
Dangerous ground indeed.
Talk from this power hungry bloke has shifted from the original plan of getting the curve and numbers under control to now announcing things will now depend on if and when a vaccine is developed.
All state premiers are acting as if they are running their own country.
The PM had to step up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pipoz4444]

The Victorian state labor leader, disregarding the fact the numbers of deaths are false, has now advised the Victorian state of emergency will extend past the constitution 6 month date of September 13 for another 12 months.
Dangerous ground indeed.
Talk from this power hungry bloke has shifted from the original plan of getting the curve and numbers under control to now announcing things will now depend on if and when a vaccine is developed.
All state premiers are acting as if they are running their own country.
The PM had to step up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The question is Barney, do these States (the Premiers and their Ministers) actually have the authority under our Constitution or even under their State based Laws, to impose such restrictions, including those of Border closure. It might appear to be a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances, but Australia is a country of Laws and Courts, with a Charter to ensure an Individuals rights according to those Laws.

Like Clive Palmer, it is only a matter of time before some other business entities or possibly even class action groups, decide to challenge what the actual limit of the State Authorities/Premiers/Minister is, within our Courts as related to the present status of Covid-19. Arguably Covid-19 has moved on from being a Pandemic in Australia, which was at one time out of control to something lesser, these days, if one looks at case numbers and how they are now being controlled?

One question is also, "How will the Court view the status or severity of Covid-19 within Australia at present and whether their view is that it warrants the respective actions of the State Governments and can they be legally imposed by that State Government, in the current circumstances?? Just have to wait and see.

We are not a country at War with others and we are not a country at War or Civil Unrest, within our Borders. The Wartime Act of 1914 and other Wartime Legislation, is different and from what I read, it only gave special powers to the Federal Government, not too the individual States of Australia. Hence, the question, "What are the rights of an individual, to cross a State Border, where our constitution considers us to be one Nation, with one Constitution for all people". I believe the Federal Court is currently hearing Clive Palmer's challenge against Western Australia, which the Commonwealth Government has elected to stay out of. I haven't kept up with the Status and not even sure what part of the Federal Court system is hearing it, or even if it is tin our High Court..

Depending on the eventual outcome, you may have other potential challenges, some for Damages against the various State Authorities, if the States are found to have exceeded their authority, by imposing their border restriction on businesses that survive on cross border flow. This part can go on for years after the event.

A similar question may eventually be asked of the High Court, with respect to an individual’s rights to fly out of Australia, and whether that individual maintains the right under the constitution. I am only talking of him/her leaving Australia. Again that individuals is not flying to a war zone or fly out to commit an act of terrorism. The argument for him/her re-entering is totally different and I am sure the national Borders have the right under our Constitution to impose whatever quarantined restrictions they need to on those re-entering. But the right to leave, well that would appear to be a different argument, for one with a legal passport and legitimate reason to travel?

I think our Court system is reasonably independent of Government.

Time will tell

Link: https://www.cairnspost.com.au/breaking- ... 6532b7f895

pipoz4444

[tamada]

The Victorian state labor leader, disregarding the fact the numbers of deaths are false, has now advised the Victorian state of emergency will extend past the constitution 6 month date of September 13 for another 12 months.
Dangerous ground indeed.
Talk from this power hungry bloke has shifted from the original plan of getting the curve and numbers under control to now announcing things will now depend on if and when a vaccine is developed.
All state premiers are acting as if they are running their own country.
The PM had to step up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is a degree of state autonomy though. That didn't stop a lot of misguided souls pillorying PM Morrison when their state-controlled and state-funded fire prevention was overwhelmed (again) by horrific seasonal bush fires.

Is there no credible in-state opposition that they need to run crying to the nanny state?

[Barney]

The states have, in the current constitution, the authority for a declaration of 6 month State of Emergency. This allows them to issue any instruction etc etc to control the emergency.
To my knowledge this 6 month time frame is to prevent premiers from controlling matters any longer than necessary.
Now with this premier trying to extend it for another 12 months under his control, making 18 months total, should be out of his or his state govt’s control. As I said dangerous ground for Aussie citizens if he finds what may be a loop hole.
PM should step in and clear this up.
If not trust in all govt may be receded big time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jackspratt]

My understanding is that the individual states have the power to declare a state of emergency within their own state.

The Commonwealth has the power to also declare a state of emergency, but in relation only to those powers it has under the Constitution, or ceded to them by the states.

If Andrews is successful in extending the SofE in Victoria, I'm not sure there is much that Scotty from Marketing can do. In my view, that is a good thing.

[pipoz4444]

The states have, in the current constitution, the authority for a declaration of 6 month State of Emergency. This allows them to issue any instruction etc etc to control the emergency.
To my knowledge this 6 month time frame is to prevent premiers from controlling matters any longer than necessary.
Now with this premier trying to extend it for another 12 months under his control, making 18 months total, should be out of his or his state govt’s control. As I said dangerous ground for Aussie citizens if he finds what may be a loop hole.
PM should step in and clear this up.
If not trust in all govt may be receded big time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Barney

I suspect that the "State of Emergency" will ultimately, need to be justified by the State to the Court, in Clive Palmer's case. It may depend on how the Court views the status or severity of Covid-19 within or to that State based on the current circumstances/case numbers and risks and if the believe it does constitute an actual reason for "Emergency", under the Law. i.e. one that entitles the States to implement the action of a total Border closure.

Granted Morrison probably has more power up his sleeve, but the Federal government has opted not to get involved, in the case against the Western Australian Government for some reason.

Similar thing with the States trying to extend their respective States of Emergency. I think the Federal Government will just stand back and watch and wait for the outcome

pipoz4444

[jackspratt]

Granted Morrison probably has more power up his sleeve, by the Federal government has opted not to get involved, in the case against the Western Australian Government for some reason.

The decision by Morrison is entirely political. There is a state election early next year, and the Labor Premier in WA is enjoying huge popularity for the decisions he has made.

At a state level, the Libs were decimated at the last election, and stood a fair chance of being almost wiped out if Scotty continued to back Palmer. Morrison couldn't risk that, plus the chance that it could carry over to the next federal election - particularly as his Attorney General (who was the public face of joining with Palmer) sits in a WA seat.

[tamada]

Interesting times indeed. There's no legal precedent of any state choosing to extend SoE so it's one for state and federal lawyers to mull over before anyone sticks their head above the parapet.

In the UK, I recall the doomed Theresa May government trying to force through their "deal" by trying to avoid parliamentary debate on Article 50. And then Boris's first government suspending parliament to further force his "deal" through. Took a couple of successful legal challenges from Gina Miller, a businesswoman and commoner to stop them farting in church. Maybe with bit of a political vacuum in Victoria, someone from outside of politics may need to step up and challenge the SoE extension?

I'm pretty sure both Prayuth and his antagonists here will be watching to see how that plays out.

[Barney]

Granted Morrison probably has more power up his sleeve, by the Federal government has opted not to get involved, in the case against the Western Australian Government for some reason.

The decision by Morrison is entirely political. There is a state election early next year, and the Labor Premier in WA is enjoying huge popularity for the decisions he has made.

At a state level, the Libs were decimated at the last election, and stood a fair chance of being almost wiped out if Scotty continued to back Palmer. Morrison couldn't risk that, plus the chance that it could carry over to the next federal election - particularly as his Attorney General (who was the public face of joining with Palmer) sits in a WA seat.

Jack
It didn’t take long for my simple post on a 6 month SOE to become a political football. You seem to like to drift off quite often. With the usual left lean. That’s ok no problem.
I did not mention Scott Morrison, you have bought him into the thread. Why? It does not matter to me who is in power. It really is hard to have a discussion these days with out bringing in political parties.
This is bigger than right or left politics. Maybe you can’t see that. What is next on the breakdown of our rights.
My only concern is the act stating 6 months being extended.
Point is why DID the act originally get passed for only 6 months. What was the original thinking. On the surface, to us normal Aussies, it was out I place to stop govt’s or premiers taking control of the rights of people long term. I’m sure in the past the 6 months max was debated quite vigorously, and now for some power hungry guy to try and defeat that process to me seems wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pipoz4444]

Hi Barney

I found this https://justice.act.gov.au/standard-pag ... -emergency

Nothing in the five bullet points related to closing borders between States.

The fourth bullet point is specific to "Civil Disorder", so not applicable to either Border Closure or Lockdown of businesses

Then I found this;

Link: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/publi ... d-covid-19

The paper is quite long, so have to read it all tonight The Extract below is a lead into the Paper.

On 16 March, Victoria declared a 'state of emergency' under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic).
On 18 March, the Governor-General declared a 'Human Bio-security emergency' across Australia under the Bio-security Act 2015.

These declarations conferred extraordinary powers on the Victorian Chief Health Officer and Commonwealth Health Minister, respectively, who issued determinations that successively locked down Victoria and Australia's society and economy to minimize the rate of infection.

COVID-19 marks the first time that the Emergency powers have been activated under these Acts.

On 2 August, a 'State of Disaster' was also declared in Victoria under the Emergency Management Act 1986, giving police greater power to enforce public health directions.

Accordingly, while COVID-19 has caused extraordinary economic and social upheaval, it has also been a significant constitutional event. Authorities have been empowered to impose restrictions on individual freedoms and movement that suspend constitutional norms, using directions that circumvent normal parliamentary scrutiny.

The use of emergency powers had already gained public attention across Australia during the 2019–20 bush fire season, when a 'state of disaster' was declared in Victoria for the first time under the state's Emergency Management Acts. At that time, Prime Minister Scott Morrison also called for Commonwealth capacity to declare a generalised national state of emergency.[The exercise of special powers under the states' Public Health Acts and the federal Biosecurity Act during COVID-19 has now further tested tensions that legal experts have long identified as inherent to emergency law, and its impacts on the distribution of power across the Australian federation.

This paper describes and contextualizes the kinds of powers used by the Victorian and Commonwealth governments during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is intended as both a resource that captures the emergency response to COVID-19 and a primer on some of the wider issues related to that response.

The paper has three sections;

The first section describes the broader landscape of emergency powers in Australian and Victoria. This section draws attention to the tension between emergency powers and normal democratic processes; the distinctive nature of public health emergency powers; and recent trends in centralising emergency powers in the hands of the federal government.

The second section looks in greater detail at the Biosecurity and Public Health Emergency Powers available to the Australian and Victorian governments and how they and other emergency frameworks have been implemented in response to COVID-19.

The final section contextualizes the use of these powers within a wider set of constitutional, human rights and administrative issues that experts have raised in relation to the COVID-19 response.


Note: It may be that the Victorian Government is in uncharted waters?

Anyway, I will have read and see what it says

pipoz4444

[jackspratt]

In my view there are 2 issues being conflated here:

1. the powers of individual states, and the Commonwealth, under their separate emergency powers ..... particularly what the states can do within their own borders under their own laws. All states and territories, as I understand it, have such emergency powers legislation in various forms.

I also understand that the emergency powers are invoked under a declaration by the executive, and do do not require the approval (at least initially) of the parliament of that state. I may be wrong here, but hopefully pipoz will clarify if I am.

If Victoria (or any other state) wishes to do things inside its borders - including extending their own state of emergency - it is subject to applicable state laws (provided it doesn't infringe on Commonwealth powers). It is then up to parliament, executive and courts of that state to manage the issues arising. The Commonwealth doesn't, and should not have any role outside its Constitutional powers unless requested ie the Commonwealth does not have the right to impose its will.

2. the extent of the power of a state to close down it's own internal border(s)

The second issue is whether, under a SoE, a state has exceeded its power (pursuant to the Constitution) in closing its internal border(s). Palmer is challenging this in respect to WA, and the Commonwealth has changed its mind about getting involved, purely in my view based on the political issues I stated earlier.