Conspiracy Theories:

typhoeus

Well-Known Member
From what I saw all of the worrying stuff is only in place during a declared state of emergency. Essentially, what I gathered of the detention bits are:
1) "Authorised Officers" include a range of public service employees based on their role, as well as anyone that the Secretary (I assume of the Department of Health and Human Services?) appoints. The Secretary can make such an appointment of anyone that they believe is appropriately experienced, competent, qualified, etc to undertake the role. ... This is the basis of the "citizens detaining citizens" concern - The Secretary is able to nominate anyone that they believe meets the criteria, not just people employed by the Victorian or Federal public service.

2) An "Authorised Officer" is able to detain, or order the detention of, any person or group of persons whom they have reason to believe are "high risk" and are likely to not comply with public health orders (ie isolation, quarantine, social distancing, masks, etc)

3) A "high risk" person is defined as someone who has been diagnosed with COVID and not yet medically cleared of the virus, and the notified (ie - they have to have been formally told by Victorian DHHS) close contacts of those people.

4) There are no conditions or limits placed on the above detention, with the exception of it requiring review every 24 hours by an "authorised officer" to confirm that it is still justified and appropriate.

So... It's not quite as "carte blanche" as some would like you to believe. It's not just any old person who can order someone be detained, they can't just order anybody at all detained, and they cant order them detained indefinitely without review... But, it is definitely a pretty strong extension of the existing powers.
Thats like saying the police can arrest someone whom they believe is going to commit a crime, except its not even the police. Would you like to be arrested later today because someone believes you are going to drive recklessly on Saturday? and then they can hold you tomorrow, because you still might speed on Saturday. . . .
 

Swaggie

Moderator
You mean like the security company personal, that they employed to guard the hotel.

Is that the same Security that no Minister remembers employing and they don’t know how they mysteriously ended up there...

Meaning Of A Politician: Top Pay and Perks for NO Accountability...
 

Warby

Well-Known Member
Watching it again a little more attentively now... I definitely agree that one of the impacts of this bill will be to discourage people getting tested.

But... He is twisting the words and deliberately splitting the precautionary detention and the high risk persons definition to try and make it sound like an authorised officer can detain anyone they want - They cant. The precautionary detention is a worry, but it CANNOT be applied to just anyone.. You have to fit in to the high risk category, which means you have been diagnosed with COVID19 or you're a notified close contact of someone with COVID19.

There is no way that they can use these powers to detain conspiracy theorists, protestors, people who speak out against government, etc etc unless they happen to fit in to the high risk category.

What I think will happen is that those who fall in to the anti-mask/anti-COVID/anti-government camps will now call for people to stop being tested so that they don't get classified as high risk and THEN detained for their position. That could be valid - I don't doubt that if anyone who is speaking out and telling people to ignore public health advice and attend protests and whatnot is diagnosed with COVID then they would be detained under this legislation. Is that unreasonable though? They are high risk... and they have, by their own words and actions, demonstrated that they are likely to not comply with isolation orders....

Setting (as far as is possible) personal opinion and bias aside.. Let's walk it through as a little thought exercise...

Theoretical person Jane is vocal against the lockdowns and restrictions. She has been posting all over social media about Dictator Dan and how unlawful and unfair the COVID restrictions are. She has made it very clear to everyone that she believes the virus is nothing to worry about and this is all either some sort of conspiracy or a government/media beat up (take your pick of the two - the outcome is the same)...

... One fine day, Jane catches up with her mate Bob, a meatpacker. Bob, unknowingly, has COVID. Bob and Jane are "really" good mates.... They exchange some saliva (among other things) .... Jane now has COVID too. Oops. Its OK though, Jane knows that COVID is no big deal because she's a fit and healthy 29 year old. She feels like she has a bit of a cold and that's about it. She does go and get tested though because her Mum and Dad are worried and she just wants to shut them up.... A positive result is returned, and from here she has no control over the situation.

DHHS and Jane are notified of her positive result. The contact tracers do their thing and identify a total of 15 close contacts.

This is where it gets interesting under this new Bill.

DHHS "Authorised Officers" have been watching Jane's posts. They jump on the opportunity to stifle a bit of insurrection... A detention order is issued for Jane and a number of her close contacts who have been supportive of her position. The justification is that Jane and her close contacts are "high risk" and the authorised officer, based on what they've been posting and supporting on social media, is "reasonably satisifed" that they may not comply with the orders to self-isolate.

This can continue for as long as the DHHS authorised officer feels it is justified. Every 24 hours they have to review it, but there is no end date. My honest expectation is that they would probably default to 2 weeks to align with the standard quarantine requirements. So, for 2 weeks, 16 people are detained (not just ordered to stay home, but physically detained - locked up - where though? That part I'm not sure of) without having committed any crime.. Without having done anything, in the case of 15 of them, except being near someone who got sick ...

Definitely a worry.

I DO understand the logic and rationale behind it..... The intent is to ensure that someone cant get sick and then go out coughing and spluttering it all over Melbourne, kicking off a third wave, because of their personal views on the seriousness of the virus.... But it's a worry.
 
Last edited:

Warby

Well-Known Member
Thats like saying the police can arrest someone whom they believe is going to commit a crime, except its not even the police. Would you like to be arrested later today because someone believes you are going to drive recklessly on Saturday? and then they can hold you tomorrow, because you still might speed on Saturday. . . .

Not quite. You also have to fit the "high risk" category.. So a closer analogy would be to compare it to the Police arresting someone who is out on bail ("a high risk person") because they suspect they're about to commit another crime..

As per my previous post, I definitely see it as a worrying step.
 

rogerazz

4x4 Earth Contributer
Rogerazza QC by the time you finish reading that lot, I nearly put my hand up too. Thanks for taking one for the team mate:D:D
Yeah! bit like reading the A D R regulations on vehicles or worse still, try reading and interpreting the St Andrews Rules of golf as you are arguing with a playing partner during competition about what relief you get, that is for your golf ball I mean.
Maybe this particular Golf rule should apply to all us honest????? citizens during covid19.
RULE 1 . in part says "Play by the Rules and in the spirit of the game. You are responsible for applying your own penalties if you breach a Rule" :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
 

Warby

Well-Known Member
Watching it again a little more attentively now... I definitely agree that one of the impacts of this bill will be to discourage people getting tested.

But... He is twisting the words and deliberately splitting the precautionary detention and the high risk persons definition to try and make it sound like an authorised officer can detain anyone they want - They cant. The precautionary detention is a worry, but it CANNOT be applied to just anyone.. You have to fit in to the high risk category, which means you have been diagnosed with COVID19 or you're a notified close contact of someone with COVID19.

There is no way that they can use these powers to detain conspiracy theorists, protestors, people who speak out against government, etc etc unless they happen to fit in to the high risk category.

What I think will happen is that those who fall in to the anti-mask/anti-COVID/anti-government camps will now call for people to stop being tested so that they don't get classified as high risk and THEN detained for their position. That could be valid - I don't doubt that if anyone who is speaking out and telling people to ignore public health advice and attend protests and whatnot is diagnosed with COVID then they would be detained under this legislation. Is that unreasonable though? They are high risk... and they have, by their own words and actions, demonstrated that they are likely to not comply with isolation orders....

Setting (as far as is possible) personal opinion and bias aside.. Let's walk it through as a little thought exercise...

Theoretical person Jane is vocal against the lockdowns and restrictions. She has been posting all over social media about Dictator Dan and how unlawful and unfair the COVID restrictions are. She has made it very clear to everyone that she believes the virus is nothing to worry about and this is all either some sort of conspiracy or a government/media beat up (take your pick of the two - the outcome is the same)...

... One fine day, Jane catches up with her mate Bob, a meatpacker. Bob, unknowingly, has COVID. Bob and Jane are "really" good mates.... They exchange some saliva (among other things) .... Jane now has COVID too. Oops. Its OK though, Jane knows that COVID is no big deal because she's a fit and healthy 29 year old. She feels like she has a bit of a cold and that's about it. She does go and get tested though because her Mum and Dad are worried and she just wants to shut them up.... A positive result is returned, and from here she has no control over the situation.

DHHS and Jane are notified of her positive result. The contact tracers do their thing and identify a total of 15 close contacts.

This is where it gets interesting under this new Bill.

DHHS "Authorised Officers" have been watching Jane's posts. They jump on the opportunity to stifle a bit of insurrection... A detention order is issued for Jane and a number of her close contacts who have been supportive of her position. The justification is that Jane and her close contacts are "high risk" and the authorised officer, based on what they've been posting and supporting on social media, is "reasonably satisifed" that they may not comply with the orders to self-isolate.

This can continue for as long as the DHHS authorised officer feels it is justified. Every 24 hours they have to review it, but there is no end date. My honest expectation is that they would probably default to 2 weeks to align with the standard quarantine requirements. So, for 2 weeks, 16 people are detained (not just ordered to stay home, but physically detained - locked up - where though? That part I'm not sure of) without having committed any crime.. Without having done anything, in the case of 15 of them, except being near someone who got sick ...

Definitely a worry.

I DO understand the logical and rationale behind it..... The intent is to ensure that someone cant get sick and then go out coughing and spluttering it all over Melbourne, kicking off a third wave, because of their personal views on the seriousness of the virus.... But it's a worry.


Also to add... Walking through this, it becomes immediately obvious that there is no way in HELL that Jane, or any of her friends, or anyone else that thinks they might be viewed in a similar light to Jane, is going to get tested. Why would they? They're not that bothered about the virus (rightly or wrongly - irrelevant to this discussion), so getting tested represents nothing but downside for them.. They go from being a little bit sick, to being a little bit sick plus them and all of their close contacts detained for no good reason.
 

rogerazz

4x4 Earth Contributer
I watched the Swedish epidemiologist on video who said amongst many other things. About 90% of the Swedish people practice hygeine, self isolation, social distancing, whatever is recommended, etc. without being forced to.
He even stated that their airlines have basically closed down, not because of government requirements, but because people do not want to go out and travel which will spread the virus.
Hmmm! sure going to work here in this country of the me me generation.
 

boobook

Well-Known Member
I think that is a key Roger. It's like a lot of Asian countries. People tend to do the right thing so laws aren't required.

Sweden has had its fair share of financial disaster, and above-average deaths and cases, but if the government didn't lock people down here, it would have been a complete disaster.

On balance, at a federal and non victorian level, I think the response has been appropriate for how people behave here. Victoria has been and continues to be a different mess.
 

discomatt

Well-Known Member
There is no way that they can use these powers to detain conspiracy theorists, protestors, people who speak out against government, etc etc unless they happen to fit in to the high risk category.
But they have been doing this for a while with the "association ' laws, if a group of mates who all happen to own Harley Davidson's go for a ride and there is 4 of them, they can be assumed of committing an offense, bikes can be impounded and individuals fined. Same basics apply here.
All they need to do is claim your a close contact, pretty easy for an over zealous government and their hit squad to blur some lines.
I am sure there are plenty of examples throughout history where controlling governments have set up similar " collection squads " to round up individuals for an given reason then detain them indefinitely and without charge.
I am also pretty sure history does not regard them well and they are looked at as evil dictatorships, lets just hope the collected Australian citizens don't get starved half to death then beaten or tattooed.
 

Warby

Well-Known Member
But they have been doing this for a while with the "association ' laws, if a group of mates who all happen to own Harley Davidson's go for a ride and there is 4 of them, they can be assumed of committing an offense, bikes can be impounded and individuals fined. Same basics apply here.
All they need to do is claim your a close contact, pretty easy for an over zealous government and their hit squad to blur some lines.
I am sure there are plenty of examples throughout history where controlling governments have set up similar " collection squads " to round up individuals for an given reason then detain them indefinitely and without charge.
I am also pretty sure history does not regard them well and they are looked at as evil dictatorships, lets just hope the collected Australian citizens don't get starved half to death then beaten or tattooed.

I think the anti-association laws are draconian BS. Always have.

They can't just claim they're a close contact to utilise the detention powers of this omnibus bill. This is the text from the bill with regard to the definition of a "High Risk" person being a close contact:
"the person has been notified in accordance with the applicable requirements that the person is a close contact of a person who has been diagnosed with COVID-19, and has not been given clearance 35 from self-quarantine in accordance with the applicable requirements"

So they have to been notified that they're a close contact...

Also, I just went and had a look at the current version of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act... Here's the text currently in force in Section 200(1):
"(1) The emergency powers are—
(a) subject to this section, detain any person or group of persons in the emergency area for the period reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce a serious risk to public health;
(b) restrict the movement of any person or group of persons within the emergency area;
(c) prevent any person or group of persons from entering the emergency area;
(d) give any other direction that the authorised officer considers is reasonably necessary to protect public health. "


Call me crazy, but that actually looks to me like the requirement for the person to be defined as "high risk" and meet certain criteria to be detained is actually a watering down of these powers. They can already detain anyone, for as long as they want, without review....

What justification do they need to do so? Not much...

"(2) Unless subsection (3) applies, before any person is subject to detention under subsection (1)(a), an authorised officer must briefly explain the reason why it is necessary to detain the person.

(3) If in the particular circumstances in which the power to detain the person is to be exercised, it is not practicable to briefly explain the reason why it is necessary to detain the person before the power is exercised, the authorised officer must do so as soon as is practicable. "


So......... now I'm confused.... What is so much worse about what's being introduced by the Omnibus Bill???
 

dno67

Well-Known Member
I think the anti-association laws are draconian BS. Always have.

They can't just claim they're a close contact to utilise the detention powers of this omnibus bill. This is the text from the bill with regard to the definition of a "High Risk" person being a close contact:
"the person has been notified in accordance with the applicable requirements that the person is a close contact of a person who has been diagnosed with COVID-19, and has not been given clearance 35 from self-quarantine in accordance with the applicable requirements"

So they have to been notified that they're a close contact...

Also, I just went and had a look at the current version of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act... Here's the text currently in force in Section 200(1):
"(1) The emergency powers are—
(a) subject to this section, detain any person or group of persons in the emergency area for the period reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce a serious risk to public health;
(b) restrict the movement of any person or group of persons within the emergency area;
(c) prevent any person or group of persons from entering the emergency area;
(d) give any other direction that the authorised officer considers is reasonably necessary to protect public health. "


Call me crazy, but that actually looks to me like the requirement for the person to be defined as "high risk" and meet certain criteria to be detained is actually a watering down of these powers. They can already detain anyone, for as long as they want, without review....

What justification do they need to do so? Not much...

"(2) Unless subsection (3) applies, before any person is subject to detention under subsection (1)(a), an authorised officer must briefly explain the reason why it is necessary to detain the person.

(3) If in the particular circumstances in which the power to detain the person is to be exercised, it is not practicable to briefly explain the reason why it is necessary to detain the person before the power is exercised, the authorised officer must do so as soon as is practicable. "


So......... now I'm confused.... What is so much worse about what's being introduced by the Omnibus Bill???
The power to authorise a person with the the power ?
 

dno67

Well-Known Member
That seems to be about it... At the same time though, the powers of detention have been tightened quite significantly from what they are today..
I don't think its a good idea for one person in a democracy to have such power, especially given the past performance of individuals during this pandemic.
 

MrPoopypants

Well-Known Member
So the first Governor lied to the people ?

Well..........nothing has changed:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Personally, I like to blame the Poms. :)
Lachlan Macquarie (a visionary in my eyes) was under strict orders not to expand the colony or build permanent buildings. He defied both and one of his many achievements was crossing the Blue Mts, allowing the gold to be discovered. (Cox's Rd at Mt. York is worth a visit and a walk down to see how hard his visit to Bathurst must have been to open the colony up) This eventually led to massive expansion and sealed the future of the country. He was punished and died a pauper back in Scotland. The Aust. government only found his grave and restored it about twenty years ago or so. They set him up with a rigged inquiry to discredit him.
The poms kept a lid on the gold for as long as they could, as they always planned to abandon the Colony eventually.
A conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory.
So, there you go, don't believe everything you read. (Did I just write that?)
PP
 

mikehzz

Well-Known Member
Personally, I like to blame the Poms. :)
Lachlan Macquarie (a visionary in my eyes) was under strict orders not to expand the colony or build permanent buildings. He defied both and one of his many achievements was crossing the Blue Mts, allowing the gold to be discovered. (Cox's Rd at Mt. York is worth a visit and a walk down to see how hard his visit to Bathurst must have been to open the colony up) This eventually led to massive expansion and sealed the future of the country. He was punished and died a pauper back in Scotland. The Aust. government only found his grave and restored it about twenty years ago or so. They set him up with a rigged inquiry to discredit him.
The poms kept a lid on the gold for as long as they could, as they always planned to abandon the Colony eventually.
A conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory.
So, there you go, don't believe everything you read. (Did I just write that?)
PP
I'd never heard of Cox's Rd before until I stopped in at Mt York last sunday on a whim and read all the plaques. What a coincidence that you post about it right now. That sort of spooky stuff happens a fair bit. :)
 
Top