While they hail from very different sides of the political spectrum, Donald Trump and Daniel Andrews certainly have a few things in common. Their ability to master the media cycle and distract attention is one.
While Andrews deals with the ongoing dumpster fires of hotel quarantine, masks and a captain’s curfew call, hidden in plain sight is something far worse.
That is, the innocuously named COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) and Other Acts Amendment Bill, which sailed through the Victorian Legislative Assembly and is currently awaiting approval by the upper house (where the Labor party doesn’t have a majority).
While much of the proposed legislation largely extends the current (themselves onerous) provisions, Andrews has buried a couple of landmines in there, too.
First, the bill would allow the government to appoint anyone (they don’t need to be a police officer subject to very strict regulation, or even a public servant) to be an “authorised officer”. This could potentially create a government-sanctioned militia.
Authorised officers are then given extraordinary powers, including the ability to arrest someone who has COVID-19, or someone who happens to be a close contact of someone with COVID-19 if the authorised officer simply believes that someone is likely to breach an emergency direction.
These powers are far stricter than any currently possessed by any other police force in Australia.
But it gets worse. Not only can an authorised officer arrest someone, they can also detain them indefinitely if they think that person is high risk. The legislation also removes the existing requirement to review the continued detention every 24 hours. This appears to be a complete trampling over the centuries-old principle of habeas corpus.
The proposed legislation was slammed by a cross section of the judiciary, led by one of Australia’s longest serving High Court judges Michael McHugh, claiming that it is “unprecedented, excessive and open to abuse”.
The bill was also criticised by Julian Burnside QC, who seems to have re-discovered his libertarian concerns in recent weeks, noting “the idea that the law will allow any citizen to detain any other citizen, summarily and indefinitely, is alarming”.
Greens MP Tim Reed was also critical, stating that “if they put all the power in one person, they become the expert witness, judge and jailer”.
Bear in mind, the legislation is being proposed by a government which thought it apt to lock up hundreds of the poorest Victorians for a week in tiny housing commission apartments without warning. For their own good, of course.
Andrews defended the legislation, claiming it was “unprecedented because we’re in unprecedented times”.
Yesterday, Victoria had zero cases of COVID-19 from unknown sources.
Not quite sure why the author found the need to lob a bomb at Julian Burnside whose views seem pretty consistent to me. I think the legislation will get knocked back in the Upper House. I hope so. It is rather draconian, including allowing 3-month-trained protective service officers to carry guns and to patrol public spaces, neither of which seem desirable. But then Dan has always been big on law and order.
“trained protective service officers to carry guns and to patrol public spaces”
Did you see or read what happened over in WA on the weekend when security contractors pepper-sprayed and tasered an innocent unarmed family at a railway station?
And Andrews wants to give these type of goons guns here in Victoria? Jesus wept.
The boofheads they’ve got now, that don’t have guns, are bad enough. It is one of the reasons I went back to driving my car because of the intimidatory attitude these ‘characters’ have.
Not so much ‘law & order’ as a complete strangle hold on people lives and minds.
I started off agreeing with the author on this one, but by the end he had talked me out of it. A true gift.
I felt the same Simon. He starts out with an observation that is hardly arguable, adds some weight to it, and somehow brings me to a position less inclined to support the overall thrust. Truly unique.
I don’t understand the characterisation of masks and curfew as “dumpster fires”?
Masks have been a common theme amongst health experts since day one of this pandemic (world-wide) and are proven to protect against (and spread of) infection with very little cost (financially and inconvenience-wise). How is this still an issue?
The curfew was put in place to allow Victoria Police to do their job, keeping people at home. Andrews has, on several occasions stated that the Police would have spent their evenings arguing with people over exceptions and minutiae, when they really need to be home, again on medical advice. It has made the Police force’s job immeasurably easier to keep people to the rules. Again, staying home after 8am is hardly an impost, given everything is closed anyway!
Sorry to remind you but all “bonafide” virologists and epidemiologists say the masks do not prevent virus transfer.
This proposed piece of legislation from the Andrews govt is just extraordinary but not surprising considering their marxist bent. Why on earth would they do this?…staggering. It reminds us all of Stalin’s Russia during the revolution when they appointed “marshals” to spy, report and even arrest people. All it achieved was people settling and evening up old scores, brutally.
I see little difference between Andrews and Trump – both part of the problem and affixed on common ground.
Flat out lie.
Your use of quotes implies that they were not bona fide virologists and epidemiologists
The Lancet ‘did a systematic review of 172 observational studies in health-care and non-health-care settings across 16 countries and six continents’ regarding the efficacy of distancing and wearing of masks.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext#seccestitle70
It concluded:
And:
There is no ‘complete protection from infection’ – who would argue that there is? – but I prefer the Lancet’s findings to yours. Have you heard of risk assessment and the precautionary principle?
Good to see you sticking with main-stream publications. I would n’t trust the Lancet police investigating the police medical official organ anymore than i would trust any other main-stream publication. It’s called “vested interest”
I mentioned the masks as an aside. Please do not change the subject matter of this article.The Andrews marxist govt.
“Mouth masks in healthy individuals are ineffective against the spread of viral infections.
Wearing a mouth mask is not without side effects.
Oxygen deficiency occurs fairly quickly (headache, nausea, fatigue, concentration drops), an effect comparable to altitude sickness. Every day we now see patients who complain of headaches, sinus problems, respiratory problems and hyperventilation due to wearing mouth masks.”
This is from the open letter to Belgium Health officials from concerned Doctors and health experts…over 8,000 of them.
Yeah, well, I suppose if you live in Yackendandah, that would be the case.
Victoria is a beautiful state but its always had a nasty police force hiding behind every bush looking for interstate drivers. Of course the nasty trickles down from the top. Its like they are still getting over Ned Kelly.
“But it gets worse. Not only can an authorised officer arrest someone, they can also detain them indefinitely if they think that person is high risk”
Expect strip-searches to loom large. These armed goons will exploit this. Women in particular but men just for the heck of it.