I’m not saying the Bill is wrong.
But surely there is a short term solution to extending the State of Emergency without tying it to the approval of the bill being pushed through.
They’ve been arguing about this for six months. I get bipartisanship is out the window in Victoria but there has to be a short term fix that allows the bill to be debated through parliament separately from the State of Emergency powers being called.
There isn’t a short term fix, powers under the Emergency legislation expire 15 December. The alternative was to amend the Emergency legislation, which would have opened the door to misuse of emergency powers - particularly in a situation where the Government controls both Houses
- it happened under the Howard Government and we are stuck with bad laws , although some were repealed under Rudd/Gillard - and full marks to Gillard with a minority Government
3 Likes
This, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Either the bill is scrapped and every criticism of government action over the last two years happens again next time around.
Or, it gets passed and brings further checks/balances and transparency to ministerial decisions, like oh I dunno, publishing the health advice - something every jurisdiction has been arguing for for months
1 Like
If true, this makes a mockery of the current protests and the political opportunism from the state opposition
Dunno, it seems one of those things which is probably half-true. All those ticks might be correct, but it’s missing some of the other stuff. That sort of half-true.
But that’s just from my naïve glance at it. I have no idea whether that is the case or not.
1 Like
It’s true, but it’s not the whole story. That table is taken from a tweet by an ALP member, so unsurprising that Bacchus is posting it.
I’ve actually read through the bill, not every clause, but enough to understand it.
It’s pretty classic Andrews.
Is it terrible? No. Is it great? No.
Is it an unchecked dictatoresque grab for power? No. Has appropriate consultation been done? No. Are best practice checks and balances in place? No.
It’s not awful, but there could, and should, be much more oversight (and independent review) on the use of the powers.
4 Likes
I’m not arguing whether the bill matches NSW or otherwise.
I’m just questioning whether a short term agreement can be met whilst the bill is continued to be fleshed out and argues in parliament.
And I certainly do wish that the details of the bill would actually be reported and benchmarked against other states and what was in place to this point.
Because all we hear is ‘POWER GRAB’ rather than detail.
Until that messaging changes, that’s what the protest is about.
1 Like
Much as this has been cast as a unique Victorian issue driven by Dictator Dan, the debate on the use of emergency powers in the Pandemic has been raging in many countries, including in Federal systems.
As evident from some of the banners carried by the protesters, they are getting their information from US Trumpian sources and have not bothered to reflect on what is the best fit for Australia or their State.
In that context, the Commonwealth elected to limit the exercise its emergency health powers to measures at the national border.
It vacated the field and has been divisive in its selective criticisms.
If it thought some State measures were so bad, it could have overridden them with its own legislation ( in the case of non exclusive Constitutional powers, Commonwealth laws override conflicting State laws)
I would suggest actually reading the bill if you’re interested, because you’re not going to get any kind of non-partisan explanation from media outlets.
Yeah, it’s not fun, but at least you’ll know what’s in it.
3 Likes
Go to Fiona Patten’s website - her article
- Pandemic Legislation myth busting
Includes her own tick a box
I have no problems reading it.
It won’t be perfect and won’t be full proof.
I’d say around (at least more than the majority) will take in the media explanation. Of those, most will understand that NSW have been doing a similar way to what is proposed. The rest will feed into the messaging and call it a POWER GRAB.
It is what it is.
I don’t think this loses Andrews government but somehow the messaging needs to be balanced.
It hasn’t had the opportunity for balance for quite some time.
Really recommend you read Patten’s analytical article, which has links to statements by some other informed bodies.
1 Like
Oh don’t be stupid
1 Like
Few people are going to read it, fewer will actually understand it, which includes journalists that have about as much knowledge on rights and laws as they did when they started their cereal box degrees.
I’d also add the extreme scrutiny of this bill is pretty amusing, when you consider that the last five years has seen bills passed with little to no discussion about;
- The feds having powers to force hardware/software companies to create backdoors into devices, and prevent them from disclosing it,
- Rubber-stamping mining/farming approvals without environmental checks,
- The 2+ year battle to ram the archaic religious discrimination bill through the houses,
- The foreign relations bill that was spun as saving Aus from an Andrews/Xi tagteam but is actually fked
- Climate change laws, or complete lackthereof
- Federal ICAC when?
- Industrial relations reform
Do people not read bills for fun?
You used to be cool SMJ
7 Likes
I know where it came from and it is good work by a Comrade of mine in Ballarat. The source is irrelevant; as long as it it true. I have read the proposed bill and look at a precis of the NSW rules, and seems true to me.
I reckon some do get carried away with a Bill before Parliament, as most need to be in place and in operation before we can judge the relative worth. In a democracy we vote people in to make decisions in times of crisis, and then some whinge when a decision is made. When Ted Bailleiu was Premier not sure any decison was ever made.
Sutton has registered discontent - on a different issue- about legally illiterate journalists in the MSM and has suggested that their legal editor have a role
- but I suppose they are too busy warding off defamation claims.
The ABC has fallen down on this one in its reporting.
ABC needs a legally literate journo of the likes of the scientifically literate Norman Swan
- you don’t have to agree with them but they have the capacity to distil issues.
In all honesty, I don’t think I’m the one that needs that balanced article. I do see through some of the rubbish.
A one off article gets lost in the news cycle of continual ‘POWER GRAB’ messaging.
Journalism and news reporting is what it is.
Messaging will be ‘POWER GRAB’. It’s already been established.
ABC needs to stop presenting national news and news about other than NSW States through the prism of Sydney society.
5 Likes
That’s not happening at this point in time.
The media’s behaviour is pretty much set in stone.
To shift their behaviour, it needs alternative messaging to get a hold of the general public.
Be it from government or other media sources.
That’s where we are.