Carlton Supporters Club

Hello everyone, if this exists, please merge it where it should be.

The 16th to the 18th of November 2021 will be remembered as a historic moment in time for the people of Victoria.  The people of Victoria have been living in a “State of emergency “ under the health and well-being Act going back a few years. This state of emergency finally expires on the 15th of December 2021. The Victorian government has been working on an amended plan to take over after the 15th of December. It is known as the Pandemic Management bill. It has been worked on since April 2021. A one hundred plus page bill. On how the Victorian government can manage the Covid pandemic in our state. To apparently manage the safety of the people. Through settings that were part of the previous health and well-being Act.

This new Act has many problems with how it can be applied. Issues stated by the President of Victorian Bar Council. Issues stated by Liberty Victoria. Issues stated by at least a dozen recognised QC’s of which have all written mail to the current government to make major changes to this bill. To avoid imposing on human rights regulations, employment rights under fair work, and issues that will effect the judicial rights of all Victorians. This new bill has been voted in with the lower house of government in Victoria. It is now in serious discussion in the upper house. With little doubt it will be passed, and be a new standard to how we all are going to experience what will be called Pandemic Management.

It has the power once activated to be our new State of emergency, and allow many settings, restrictions of movement and penalties to fall in place. Something we have never seen before anywhere in the world. The Premier of the state and the Health minister have full powers to enforce any settings they feel are required to execute pandemic management. The Chief Health Officer is now just an advisory role. Playing a role that states facts and recommendations but the end result is what the Premier and Health minister decide to act on in our new settings. Not up for vote amongst other parliamentary members. Their concerns will be heard. However they can be rejected. They can offer further concerns to a committee which will review all concerns and act. A committee which is independent. One selected by the Premier and Health minister. Wow. How independent is that.

A settings or restriction can be placed on the community based on individual “attributes and characteristics “. Something we all have. We are all either black, white, male, female, gay, lesbian, fat, skinny, rich, poor, tall, short, and many more of these attributes and characteristics. Including the most important one of all. Political views. You could see a setting, restriction or a penalty applied to you based on your political view. Does any of this concern one person only here? Now I get to the hard nuts. We all know the first attribute will be unvaccinated. Sounds like a logical target. I don’t think speculation by me is anything less than what everyone expected. Why wasn’t this in the bill? Why does it allow such a grey area to target anyone? Is this about health and well-being of all Victorians. We were told by Dan Andrews that once we get to 80% fully vaccinated population we need to live with the virus.

Why do we now have a new bill? Why have we been given a glimmer of hope to see our families and friends for Christmas? Why have we been promised a chance to live under a covid way of life?  Why is there going to be a huge super spread issue going to happen day one of the Boxing Day test? Do I sit here and say nothing or tell you money talks and bullsh1t walks. 80 to 85 thousand people. I know it is in the open. They sit on top of each other. No 1.5m social distancing.  $150 per ticket average cost. Some more some less. Get on the beers Victoria. It might be our last moment of freedom for a while. Obviously add food and drinks to the total and we have a huge tax back to the government of the state.

Now for the hard items to digest. The penalties to those that don’t conform to the settings and restrictions that could be in place. No more $200 or $400 no face masks. The new penalties to minor breaches will be as high as $20,909. Not scanning in with your QR code could be as high as $90,000. Sorry but I forgot could be a very expensive result. Don’t ignore paying the penalty. It could cost you two years behind bars. Don’t bother getting a highly rated solicitor or barrister. The judicial system will have no standing against the new emergency state. It will over rule standard human rights laws. Appeals will be heard by the independent committee selected by the Premier. How do you think that will go?

Have you all heard about the new police rights regarding warrants and access to your property? You will have no rights. The police will be allowed access to your property for any suspicion regarding the new Pandemic Management ruling. Whether you have posted anything on a media site, phone calls, or public comments caught on CCTV. If there is anything that follows any trend against the political views of the current government, you can be detained and have all of your items removed from your house. Phone, tablets and computers. They can enter on a feeling you might be against the current government views huge or small. No warrants required. If you place a hand on any Officer of the law or a member of the department of health services you can be arrested and be jailed for at least 2 years. They can justify your reaction as assaults on an officer. Stand back or go to jail.

I am not an anti-vaxer. I have my first jab. I just fear what is yet to come. Sure come at me. I am considered anti Labor. Wrong. It is ant communism. Anti government because I was promised so much and delivered so little. Vote them out at the next election people say. That is November 2022. Andrews government could extend that election. They will. The new bill will allow them to do so indefinitely. As long as the virus exists anywhere in the world they can select restrictions to go along pandemic management . They can void elections. They can do as they choose. They can shut down businesses indefinitely. Call the committee as the judges in the courts will have no say. We Victorians are screwed. Remember my words in the first month of 2022. I hope I am wrong but in this case I know I am not.

Yep.

We shouldnt view these rules under the current status quo.

They should be viewed through the lens, of what happens when someone who is more extremist and less focussed on whats in "the publics interest, but not me, the people who serve me".

How could these rules be exploited to create a truly broken state?

The irony, is that the Labor party has signed its death warrant, and the Liberal party will be elected next year.  First time, in my 20 years of voting, that I am going to flip.  Funny enough, Im a public servant and Im still going to flip.

... Victoria's new bill in many ways might "set a model" for the reforms he expects will be made in jurisdictions across the globe.

"This is a debate that's happening across the world; Victoria's one of the first jurisdictions to be doing this," he told ABC Radio Melbourne.

With that caveat noted, he believed the bill was "an improvement on what exists in New South Wales", where the Act is around 11 years old.

The Victorian government has noted the current NSW laws have more relaxed triggers for invoking emergency powers, and fewer limits on the length of a declaration compared to the new Victorian bill.

"I fully expect and would hope New South Wales would redraft and create their own fit-for-purpose law, taking into account a lot of what they've learnt," Dr Partlett said.

Dr Partlett said the Victorian bill had some "real innovations", including the "excellent" privacy protections around contact-tracing information, more transparency on health advice and clear responsibility held by the health minister of the day.

"I think every state in Australia is going to have to redraft ... and that's why this is such a significant piece of legislation for Australia, because Victoria is largely going to set a model," he said.

But he agreed with those calling for a more rigorous oversight system, as well as an overall review of the law's effectiveness after 18 months.

"We want to try and get some independent review ... to ensure that these powers don't get misused," he said.

"I mean, I think it's unlikely that they would be, but we need to have those protections in place."

Bear in mind that the Bill has now been substantially re-written to gain the support of the crossbench.  Apparently, it now has their support and will be passed in the Legislative Council - democracy at work 

The major changes to the Bill are:
- Significant reductions in fines for breaching public health orders.
- A stronger threshold for declaring a pandemic (I thought that a WHO declaration would be the trigger but weren't they slow in responding to COVID?).
- Strengthened human right protections.
- The right to protest to be enshrined in regulation.
- Guaranteed resourcing for an independent oversight committee.
- Faster publication of public health advice (within seven days of a pandemic order being made, down from 14).
- Clarifying that pandemic orders targeted on the basis of personal attributes must be relevant to the public health risk.

Reactions to those changes are mixed: 
- Ombudsman, Deborah Glass, wants a budget increase so that she can effectively scrutinise the operation of the Act (if passed).
- The Victorian Bar and Law Institute remain concerned about effective oversight and control.
- The Australian Industry Group is concerned by the powers vested in authorised officers, or bureaucrats.
- The Human Rights Legal Centre backed the amendments as "the sorts of safeguards that ultimately help government make better decisions and also help build and maintain public trust in those decisions."

Finally, public law specialist, Prof William Partlett from the University of Melbourne, said:

It seems to me that the Bill is a much-needed improvement over the current out-dated Act but lacks necessary safeguards.  Prof Partlett and other eminent public law specialists have called for the creation of a specialised cross-party parliamentary committee that would immediately start operating when a pandemic declaration is put into effect.  This appears to be emerging global best practice and already exists at Federal level with the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19.  New Zealand has a cross-party Epidemic Response Committee.

To me, this is where our Federal system fails us.  Surely National Cabinet should be able to develop parameters for consistent legislation when national issues like pandemics are concerned.  I get that the States and Territories are different and may require nuanced responses to suit their particular circumstances, but it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a set of minimum requirements to apply in all jurisdictions.

To me, this is where our Federal system fails us.  Surely National Cabinet should be able to develop parameters for consistent legislation when national issues like pandemics are concerned.  I get that the States and Territories are different and may require nuanced responses to suit their particular circumstances, but it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a set of minimum requirements to apply in all jurisdictions.

He is a lunatic, what other state is considering these non democratic proposals that strip away legal rights and give him dictatorship powers..

To add another angle, which is my bias... the mental health aspect.

Politics to one side for a moment and the necessity to implement strong measures to minimize the impact of Covid, particularly Delta, the mental health/illness/wellbeing impact has been far greater than many might imagine. And this won't be reflected in the figures, the full impact, for some time to come. Mental health resources are already appallingly under funded, under resourced and under supported... nationally and state wide.

I think patience is a key here, we should not disregard the fact that a good chunk of our Federal Politicians are Victorian.

The concept of a "Them vs us" (State vs Federal) mentality is a synthetic construct of media and social media that doesn't really exist at critical political and legal levels. I even use it in my Anti-ACB rants. That sort of finger-pointing works in the newspapers and on Facebook for trivial issues, it may motivate a State of Origin team, but it doesn't fly in the High Court and never will.

I think people should be far more fearful that assuming the pandemic subsides, the Federal and State authorities kybosh any and all forward planning, much like they did after the original SARS outbreak subsided. It's like those political claims that global warming doesn't really exist which are continually being raised after a short cold snap.

The will to act is weak, and the inertia to resist any or every change is strong, it says more about humanity than anything else!

Do we always prefer to preserve our way of pre-existing way of life, at the potential cost of lives, is doing nothing a valid action for either side of this argument? If so or if not how can either side win the debate?

The problem isn't a "them vs us" issue.  It's a lack of leadership at Federal/State/Territory levels.

The creation of National Cabinet to co-ordinate the response to COVID was brilliant ... but its potential to bring about a united, "Commonwealth" approach hasn't been realised.  Without great improvements in leadership at all levels of government, it probably never will.