By Jason Stewart*
It would seem a simple piece of logic that you isolate or quarantine a sick person, not a healthy one.
I am penning this in response to what I see as abuse of powers in New Zealand during the Covid-19 events.
On the face of it the lockdown doesn’t seem that contentious, but I first saw my unease paralleled by law firm Franks-Ogilvie, headed by former Act MP Stephen Franks. As both lawyer and former MP he is surely well placed to understand the legal complexities. Then there is the opinion of two Law Professors from the UK. Both of these articles refer to “Ultra Vires”, drawing power from the legislation that is not there to be taken. Opposition MP’s Mark Mitchell and David Seymour have called for the Crown Law advice on the matter to be disclosed. Now it turns out that even senior Police knew the Government was overstepping the mark in ordering them to enforce the rules.
So a serious question over the legality of the lockdown does exist.
Another simple piece of logic is that if there does exist uncertainty then the fall back position is what is certain. In this case certainty exists with the Bill of Rights Act 1990. The freedom of movement, Section 18, the freedom not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained, Section 22, and if pushing it a little even Section 25(c), innocence until proven guilty.
I write with my own concern as a former police officer.
The concerns are that government, or more importantly the appointed Medical Officer in issuing a Health Notice, is drawing powers beyond those in statute. Second, is government interference by directing Police to enforce these unlawful rules. Third, that the Police have given up their independence and acted unlawfully.
How much do you value your freedom? Are you willing to permit for short term events to overturn well thought out and established principles of a civil society?
The place of Police in society is really quite elementary, to keep the peace. 99% of the basis for Police work mostly concerns incidents where one person commits an act that directly breaches someone else’s right to peace and security.
New Zealands first Police, the Kororareka Association, was formed in 1838 by a group of businessmen in what is modern day Russel, to protect their interests from disorder, to keep the peace. Missionaries have described it as a wild frontier town. Earlier in 1831 13 Maori Chiefs had petitioned King William IV for protection from the lawless settlers and whalers.
What I was taught at the Royal New Zealand Police College is that the service here is a descendent of Robert Peel’s “Bobby’s”, the London Metropolitan Police.
Independence from the state, and from politics, is a very clear principle that Bobby’s worked under, and theoretically underpins the New Zealand Police. The Police serve the public, they don’t serve parliament. When I trained in the mid 90’s what we were taught was very much about how Policing was a community based affair, about getting to know and working alongside your locals.
An example of the fragility of independence from politics happened while I was serving. The Helen Clark led Labour government disbanded the PNHQ (Police National Headquarters) to allow more "oversight". John Key’s National government changed the name back, which I am assuming was a handing back of independence.
A large amount of training to be a Police Officer is to learn where coercive powers come from in Acts of Parliament. I was also taught there is a basic underlying freedom that everyone has the right to enjoy under the Bill of Rights Act. Police can only intervene when there is statutory authority to do so.
When intervening, Police rely on two processes, with Warrant, and without. Both face an evidence test before these powers are exercised. A Warrant must be issued by an independent person, usually a judge, but a search warrant can be signed by a JP, that reviews the evidence. When exercising powers without a warrant, Police must apply the test of “Good Cause to Suspect” a crime has been committed. There must be some sort of urgency to breach a persons freedom without warrant, otherwise Police must take the time to seek one.
There is also a principle that arrest, or detainment, is the extreme option. All other options should be exhausted before arrest is executed. (In practice I found arrest to be standard procedure and your performance was measured on your arrest count.)
Here is the thing, each individual Police Officer is taught the law and knows where his or her power starts, and stops. It has been deliberately set up this way to prevent government interference. There is no defense that they were "obeying orders". A Police Officer can be charged with assault if they abuse their legal use of force, and a small number are. Every Police Officer can be sued if they have acted unlawfully.
The Health Act 1956
If I was still serving as a Police Officer I would be looking at the special powers that the government has invoked under the Health Act to see how I execute any powers lawfully, and where the extent of those powers are limited. And a fine technical detail is that government actually doesn’t have any powers except to declare a state of emergency, the special powers in an emergency lie with the Medical Officer.
When I read the Health Act what is evident to me is that the powers are closer to what is required to act with a warrant, not without. A warrant being something that is specific not generalist in nature. Evidence is required to enforce these special powers, and an associated Health Notice issued. For instance when I take a look at Section 70 (1)(a) of the Act it states the District Medical Officer can:
declare any land, building, or thing to be insanitary, and prohibit its use for any specified purpose
To declare something insanitary would require evidence. I don’t read this as a power to shut down every private workplace or school in the nation. I suspect there might be a lot of businessmen looking for redress over the closure of their business premesis.
Section 70 (1)(f), which is specified in the Health Notice at the time of writing as the power to quarantine everyone at home, and prevent them moving from their home unless for shopping or exercising it says:
require persons, places, buildings, ships, vehicles, aircraft, animals, or things to be isolated, quarantined, or disinfected as he thinks fit:
The act to “require” is a restraint, a lawful intrusion. To “require” must be evidence based, to be disinfected a place or person must be infected. It follows logically from section (a) above, the declaration of insanitary comes before the “require”. It isn’t a stretch to see that a person or building should be named in a health notice.
This all applies to a private workplace the same it does a person. I suspect that Police and the Medical Officer might have a case for damages to answer for many small to medium businesses that were closed down.
Bring this back to the parallel of an Arrest or Search Warrant. The warrant must pass an evidence test and the resultant document is specific to the person named. The Health Notice follows the evidence, or even permits its collection, it doesn’t precede it.
In Section 70 (1)(m) of the act we see that the power rests to act at a district level, not a nation wide lock down as has been done.
by order published in a newspaper circulating in the health district or by announcement broadcast by a television channel or radio station that can be received by most households in the health district, do any of the following:
If I was still serving as a Police Officer I would be very concerned that the nationwide lockdown, as ordered, would be asking me to arbitrarily quarantine people, or restrict their movement, without evidence. That would be asking me to breach the public’s civil rights, and their expectation of me to conduct myself at all times professionally and lawfully. I would be worried about the longer term effect such a breach of trust might have on my partnership with the wider public. One adverse effect I am seeing is a culture of informing on your neighbours developing, something I’ve read about as a feature totalitarian states. How easy could it be for society of move in that direction?
I’m concerned The Police are acting as the coercive arm of the state. I don’t want to live in a Police state. I don’t want government interference that undermines the basics of good community policing as laid down by Robert Peel.
The Health Act is a tool that gives special powers and tools to manage an epidemic. The power to collect evidence, and act upon that evidence. This is a power to act locally on a case by case basis, quarantining and isolating if necessary. Contrary to some other legal opinions circulating my belief is the Health Act is fit for purpose. Management doesn’t mean lockdown the whole country, I believe that is just lazy, unlawful, and unprofessional.
Police appear to be acting unlawfully in limiting peoples movement, and in some cases arresting and charging people. Police stepping beyond their powers is most uncivilised and precarious situation for society to be in. What step might be taken next to restrict peoples freedom?
Now I am not a lawyer, and it is quite probably I have overlooked some aspects of the law. However the analysis of professionals in the field do give me confidence I am rationalising this at the correct level. The right to freedom isn’t hard to understand. I also think it is about independence of Police and Medical authorities. I think it is about professionalism in using the law correctly in a measured and appropriate way.
From “The Nine Principles of Policing”:
To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour
To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police
To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
Jason Stewart is a combustion engineer specialising in solid fuels, and comments on interest.co.nz as Scarfie. Prior, he had careers in both the RNZAF and the NZ Police in a varied background. He was also engineer on the vessel Ady Gil that was hit during protest action in 2010.
88 Comments
Personal liberties, are you not reading the papers or news? This is a very infectious dangerous virus that can KILL and can damage people for life. Its not just old people that die, even young people die. This virus has NO respect or does not care about your liberties. Think before you post this utter rubbish
Then you are a fool. You fail to understand that the legislation may not allow the Police to act in the way that they have - it is a short step to arrest and detention without cause and evidence. While it can be argued that that there is a public interest, it doesn't excuse having a law that is being used in a way that it is not legal to do so.
No problem following the rules for alert level 4 when they were clear and it was for the greater good. Going to alert level 3 got a bit murkier, what was the law and what were the rules are two entirely different things. Then you throw in interpretation of the rules and it gets murkier again. How can it be within the rules to travel within your region, ok to go fishing, diving, walking or swimming but somehow if you happen to drive past a house that you own on the way its not ok to stay there. The house is in isolation ie not being rented no other people there you have simply expanded your bubble to an empty house. There was no drain on local resources because you arrive fully self sufficient as no convenience stores nearby and you pay rates so entitled to any local amenities of which there are none really anyway. Surely you are just as entitled to be there as the self appointed permanents who travel back and forth into town. This happened to many people who own secondary dwellings along the coast within their regions. Being told to leave or face summons or arrest was/is unlawful in my opinion.
Read the rules before doing things and you wont be hassled by police:
https://covid19.govt.nz/individuals-and-households/travelling-and-movin…
"don’t travel far from home, especially not to baches or second homes"
Travel within your region, go swimming, go diving, go surfing, sit in your car on the reserve eating lunch, walk along the beach. Dont get hung up on words such as bach or second home they are not laws, you are selectively knit picking and splitting hairs trying to single out bach or second home when all other activity is permitted there is fundamentally no difference. It is not legally enforceable, what would the offence be? And at what point would the laws be broken or the offence committed in relation to the other activities which are no different. I to am an ex-plod and such enforcement in those circumstances is simply unlawful.
The other day on telly the police commissioner specifically said we can travel between regions. Does nobody else listen when he talks.
From the article above, I shall tell the officer nothing about what I am doing next time I am pulled up, and ask him for the evidence of possible unlawful behaviour upon which he is stopping me.
Hello Scarfie. The poster didn't argue against freedom of expression. They argued you should have a good think before posting rubbish. I would put it more gently: The final paragraph of your article indicates to me you should have framed your concerns more cautiously, as questions seeking answers.
We live in a society in which we have to balance individual rights against collective rights, best available evidence and practice (well-learned through previous epidemics and in accordance with WHO and other epidemiological advice) against disease novelty and economic concerns, all within the socio-economic and legal frameworks of that society and the bounds of the natural physical world it sits within and interacts with. And the relationships change all of the time. It's highly complex, but you are attempting to reduce the problem to a rather basic argument.
It's worth bearing in mind that the government has used existing legislation to some extent and has added a layer of appeal to society and persuasion through authority. This further layer is not necessarily enforceable under current lawHowever, should they need to, they could introduce new legislation to make even draconian actions legal. I surmise that they would probably prefer not to have to introduce such laws, for much the same reasons that you and I would prefer not to have them. Do you have evidence of people being wrongfully arrested, rather than just spoken to?
Your concerns with regard to maintaining freedoms are valid and I've no doubt that they will all be explored through the courts and through parliament and suitable conclusions drawn and actions taken. You would no doubt also be concerned at the irony of conscripting people to fight for freedom in a war. You know that governments can do that. Compare that with the light-touch approach government and the police have actually taken, to help NZ towards a better outcome as a whole. Compare it also with the on-the-spot-fines being levied in Australia. One can deduce from this lightness of touch that our governors and law enforcers have the same concerns that we do about civil liberties, and they are doing their best to tread the right path during this challenging time. It looks like NZ as a whole is achieving one of the best outcomes from the situation. I'm in touch with friends and family overseas and I can assure you that things are orders of magnitude rosier here in all regards. We are making the best of a bad situation and will have our freedoms back before they do.
I think you make a logical mistakes in your interpretations of Section 70 (1)(f). "As he sees fit" grants wide-ranging powers of interpretation and application to the Health Officer. And stating that to be disinfected one must first be infected is irrelevant, given that the sentence is either/or as regards disinfection, isolation and quarantine. One does not have to be infected to be isolated or quarantined.
The opinion posted by the law firm you cited was produced on behalf of a specific client, not in the public interest. And opinion admits that it was generated in the absence of evidence, and goes on to state: "If there was good evidence that home confinement and cessation of activities deemed non-essential were necessary and efficient requirements (taking account of available alternatives) our current opinion would not be correct."
How are we to judge what is necessary and efficient? Through scientifically-valid comparisons with alternative approaches perhaps? Through the scrutiny of parliament? Through the courts? Do you not think that we'll see all of that, as you'd expect in a healthy free society of our particular brand? After you've seen all of that (especially the comparisons) you'll probably reflect that they did the best they could under the circumstances, to both confront the crisis, and to do so without undue erosion of civil liberties. (And if not, parliament, the courts, and the voting public will act accordingly and our freedoms will prevail).
If the interpretation of what is legal really was simple, lawyers, judges and juries would not be needed. And they are, so it can't be.
Note again the conditionality of the independent legal opinion. It does not say the government's actions are illegal. It questions whether they are and asks for evidence of the benefits of those actions, musing that without evidence, on behalf of their client, they're somewhat minded to think that they possibly might be... This opinion (more of a legal letter) may or may not result in an application to the courts, judicial scrutiny, and rulings. Let us as engaged citizens follow this and see what happens next, and after that. That's right and proper to follow that process (for which we're going to need at least those lawyers and judges).
Over-simplification is more often used for ulterior motives, in my opinion. But very often motives are just genuine and not fairly categorised as 'ulterior'.
Would you prefer the introduction of draconian new laws (which hasn't happened), or the use of existing laws and appeals to people to do the right thing? I think the government has relied heavily on appealing to people's better natures. And on the whole, people have responded in good faith. And so we haven't had to enact any more significant emergency powers to pass any draconian laws.
More than that, you can't prosecute a virus, so this discussion isn't going to help respond to the pandemic in anything but a tangential way.
"The opinion posted by the law firm you cited was produced on behalf of a specific client"
Except that doesn't really matter, what is of primary important is whether the opinion is correct or not. It is irrelevant who the audience is for the purposes of an argument over what is legal and what is not.
"How are we to judge what is necessary and efficient?"
I wonder, do you level the same charge at those who deprive people of their livelihood or reduce people to poverty?
You don't seem in favour of any level of oversight or accountability, which, in historical terms, is a dangerous mistake to make.
To be clear, I favour a high level of oversight and accountability. I also favour having this discussion and welcome your part in it.
The 'necessary and efficient' phrase comes from the legal opinion. It wasn't a 'charge' on my part, I was suggesting ways to answer the question as to whether the government's actions were necessary and efficient. I think I've made clear that I think they were, but time and comparison will give a more definitive answer and we'll all collectively judge that in many ways.
Are you imputing some blame on the government for depriving people of their livelihood and reducing them to poverty? Surely most of the adverse impacts can be attributed to the effect that the pandemic would have, regardless of the government's response? Just as previous pandemics have all lead to significant adverse economic impacts. There wouldn't be many tourists arriving now, regardless of our actions, given there aren't any flights or any insurers will to offer cover, etc. But the government can perhaps shorten or prolong the crisis. Again, we may well be achieving something close to the best possible result, given that the avoidance of all impacts is not possible. Again, comparison with other countries who have had different responses may be instructive.
If you want to have zero risk of infection, then feel free to stay at home. But don't force everyone else to buy into your paranoia. The public should be given information and advice, then as the Swedes do, be left to decide and act for themselves.
Just as we do in every other facet of life.
I think you’re missing the point. The law is the law, and cannot be applied injudiciously. That is a constitutional given. Similarly, iwi checkpoints violate the rule of law. The biggest failing has been at a ministerial level, in not acting quickly enough to protect the vulnerable, not acquiring enough PPE, and hypocrisy at the highest level, ie David Clarke. Clarke repeatedly flouted the ‘law’ or guidelines, yet his department is refusing to let people visit terminally ill parents, when a bit of PPE, careful travel arrangements and disinfectant would make such a visit safe. The death rate among healthy under 60s is very, very low, by the way.
I agree wholeheartedly with your concern. I guess on some level the confusing and conflicting messages we've been fed by different departments and organisations gives rise to some of this. But a lot of the dobbing in is quite ridiculous.
Quite unprecedented it would seem, so what is the template from which the government should work? But it feels to me that the general mood is on a bit of a knife edge. It'll be incredibly hard to get us all back to level 4 if the government things that is needed. Whatever level 4 might be next time round.
I'm on board with the initial push to get on top of covid 19. But I also struggle to reconcile what has just happened to us all vs say the total apparent apathy to something like the road toll. Somehow we manage to settle on a trade off of freedom to drive, freedom to drive like idiots, how many dollars we're happy to pay for road quality and policing of, and the ensuing carnage on the roads. Or our right to access alcohol and the ensuing harm to society. If covid 19 is with us for a long time yet, I wonder what sort of balance we will get to?
Look at what is happening with firearms law. It makes this item irrelevant as the police haven't just over stepped the mark with that with govt blessing, they have overrun the mark with a tank at full speed and no brakes.
Two things that the NZ public have missed completely in the last 12 months.
Both police and govt
Or maybe the cop cars have modern proximity keys, and the key doesn't have to be inside the car to start the car? So long as the cop was standing close enough (ie, trying to open the door) when the theif jabbed the start button it'd start. Or maybe the cop left the car running when he got out, with the keys clipped to his belt.
Letting that happen would have cost the boys or girls in blue at the next jug session (happy hour). It is a tradition that all indiscretions are all recorded by the duly appointed jugmaster. Punishment to consume a jug of course. It can be a tough job, got to let off steam once in a while.
It isn't unusual for patrol cars to get stolen. When first trialing GPS tracking for the patrol cars one fitted with a unit was stolen from Auckland central. I was at north comms and following the job as it happened. The trouble was the 30 second delay, so at the controller was calling the location around the Newmarket area the two cars trying to catch it were always a block behind. They thought it was the fault of the controller and were getting quite irate.
All I can say is, watch Brazil, then get back to us with what you think about that.
This is an extraordinary time, calling for extraordinary measures. The people of NZ essentially agreed to this.
Bitch and moan all you like, but the bulk of us are happy to have had the leadership we have had.
Look at USA and UK, the virus is out of control, everybody looks at Sweden, their death toll is 2679 much higher than NZ and will go up.
Civil liberties have helped these deaths happen, also big business and Wall st, behind the scenes are saying that the curve has peaked, check John Hopkins website https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html?fbclid=…
the death rates and infection rates are rising, Look at USA, UK. the figures speak for themselves
Here’s a short clip that might strike a chord.
I think there is so much mis-information about actual figures when even the CDC can get it wrong.
It's all well and good when our government is doing right by us. But this is the exception and not the rule. There are far more corrupt governments in the world than not. So it's something we have to keep an eye on. These freedoms were hard won and should not be given up easily.
Indeed. It's not so long ago that we heard recordings of an MP and a party leader discussion list seat spots for major donors. We need to be very strict when it comes to preserving transparency and eliminating corruption. We should not be putting up with such stuff.
Yes, lets think about Brazil.
1. Corruption in government, that Mr Stewart is calling out the potential for here.
2. A poor country without enough money to offer public wide healthcare; we are currently blowing our low public debt out of the water and in so compromising all future responses.
3. High population density and slums where it is impossible to social distance or test in the volume required.
4. Connected to a continent that makes it harder to close borders.
5. A large cash economy brought about by low trust in authority; misuse of power is the beginning of that.
It's not wrong to ask any government to be accountable and I don't call that bitching or moaning. In my book it's advanced citizenship.
Following all the freedom and liberty rhetoric to its logical conclusion, I guess all the National supporters here will be happy to withdraw support for their party until it does an about face on its cringeworthy fawning support for the biggest totalitarian criminal state in the world? Right?
Pack of hypocrites.
Great perspective, and I do not doubt that within strictly legal terms it is correct. In the eternal words of Pastor Martin Niemoller;
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
But then the lies the quest of community safety. If you are to argue that there was no legal basis to lockdown the country, how then is the Government to act for community safety? To prevent infection, deaths and public hysteria as this virus with no known treatment ravaged it's way through our society?
And then your article raises even bigger questions about what the purpose of our Government, and separately, the law serves, and what the Government does or doesn't do ....
They want unbridled power without accountability.
We must demand accountability. The more power, the more right we have to demand accountability. The existence of government is not a justification of its own existence, it must be mandated by the public it represents and no government can place itself above the law.
Should a government place itself above a community, above the law, or seek to become its own moral justification it must be opposed. Niemoller's friend Bonhoeffer died for that.
Thank you Jason for your article, it gives me hope that there is still at least some freedom left in the media. Great to read something not only based on personal experience but also law, not from a 'journalist' towing the line of Govt and manufacturing consent. People are all too quick to judge others for their differing views, opinions and beliefs - everything that makes us individuals. Different perspectives create a more balanced media and is something that should be encouraged not ridiculed. Press freedom is a pillar of democracy and Govt actions should always be questioned. Become a supporter tab clicked.
Excellent article.
Frankly, NZ has been conned. What NZ media are not reporting is that if you're under 60, your chances of survival (if you get infected) are at the very least 99.9%. That's based on nearly 20 scientifically-rigorous population serological studies around the world. Those dying from this virus have a median age of about 80.
Behind the facade of Jacinda's kind face, this government has arguably perpetrated an act of brutality on Kiwis. We've been terrified into submission by being told tens of thousands of us might die, based on "models" with fictional assumptions. We've been unlawfully placed in home detention and stripped of our democratic freedoms and rights - rights that millions have died to protect in previous generations. We've been isolated and encouraged to inform on our neighbours. The economy lies in ruins, and many of us have lost our livelihoods, wealth, and future prospects.
Yet it's not a matter of lives versus the economy - illness, disease, and injury have continued unabated during lockdown, but many have been too afraid of the virus to seek medical help. It's quite plausible that lockdown has caused more deaths than the virus.
But the truly vulnerable (those in rest homes, where most deaths have occurred) have not been protected. Rather than focusing on those who are truly at risk of the disease, a police state has been forced upon everyone.
Unfortunately most Kiwis are still blinded by fear, so will angrily deny these facts. Perhaps the truth will never see the light of day.
Excellent. There are deep issues here. Tyrants seize power during crises. The establishment of the Peelers was treated with great suspicion at the time, as a national police force was historically associated with tyranny.
Our society is not based on the concept that the state should control the individual. It is based on the concept that an individual can do what he or she pleases, subject to certain restrictions where doing so would cause harm to others. The fundamental question is what is fair and reasonable behaviour. This conceptual framework is what makes our country a civilised one.
The opposite extreme is the totalitarian state where those in charge make the rules that tell everyone both what they are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do. Those in charge think they know best, either because they inherited power or were clever in gaining it.
There are many shades inbetween, but the fair and reasonable test should prevail.
This is the justification for lockdown; "subject to certain restrictions where doing so would cause harm to others" Who decides who lives or dies? The selfish young, the Government, the Police? My support goes to the group who decides that no one dies if at all possible.
Fully recognizing the irony inherent in creating an account solely to draw attention to the tone of new members to the site, I nevertheless think it interesting to point out how long the members below have been users of interest.co.nz
Homer - 3 weeks, 3 days.
Wirehunt - 1 month, 3 weeks
HistoryRepeats - 47 minutes
Speechless - 1 month, 16 hours
Have they joined this site with constructive intent? Do they have anything to say about the economic climate? About investing? About tax law perhaps? Do they have some particular insight into real-estate they would like to share, or about running a small business? Or have they all signed up after the lock-down began, bored, restless, and looking for another platform on which they can stir malcontent & attempt to score political points in some trivial game they choose to play.
I have long enjoyed the informed, well reasoned discussed on the site, coming from those with varying positions. Woe betide us should we let the tone & quality of this comment section slide into the kind of muck we see on other mainstream websites. We might do well to consider how best we keep discussion here to its core purpose - to help us make informed financial decisions.
Oh hi Mark. What happened to named accounts only? Take it you got banned because you kept posting drunk and calling everyone communists?
1. I've been reading this site for about 6 years before making an account, not a lot of time for commenting on Interest when you run a business.
2. Run a very successful small business, bootstrapped from zero, guarantee I could thrash you at entrepreneurship with both hands tied behind my back.
3. Actually read my posts and if you can find anything that isn't backed up by data I'll Paypal you $100.
Otherwise, piss off.
Best thing you can do is hire a big hall and have a debate with the Virus about it not playing by the rules as its causing all these civil rights to be slightly put aside for a while. Dosnt it realize there are civil liberties to uphold and can it please behave itself. In about 2 to 3 weeks it will give you a reply.
It was obvious to anyone who cared to look that the legal basis for the lockdown was suspect. The whole thing was built upon community buy in. Credit goes to those that knew this, but said nothing for the greater good. Credit mostly goes to everyone who complied with the lockdown "rules" for the greater good, just because they were asked to. As a country we should be proud. But this issue needs to be addressed moving forwards. At the very least we need a set of restrictions that have been subject to proper consultation and due process, which can be imposed when required. That way the rules about travelling to the beach aren't seemingly changed three times a day by press conference.
On a side note, I was glad that the grumpy police commissioner retired a couple of days into the lockdown, as his heavy handed approach was probably the biggest risk to the whole experiment.
It is a valid point, and a concern I have with this lock down, we could have had a more targeted approach based on the core risk areas and not impacted jobs, businesses and freedoms quite as severely
It was always known the risks were primarily from overseas travellers and highest risk of death among the elderly, yet we enabled total country lock down and took away peoples civil rights
Freedom of movement and action was taken away as a result of the lockdown and small to medium sized businesses will also fail resulting in further consequential losses, so it is fair to ask questions as to whether the law was followed or not
The risk is that if it is found that our law was not followed then the impact could be businesses (and possibly individuals) claiming consequential losses or damages from the crown, or worst still an undermining of the process of government
I think the recent bungle re the "wrong bill being passed into law" last week regarding business loans backed by government, is not adding much credibility that the current government is following due process carefully enough
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.