Mix_Master
|
Read an article in The Age just now (which I can't link) which talks about the Andrews Government attempting to introduce legislation to allow "authorised officers" to detain someone who they believe is "at risk of spreading COVID-19".
Now, I "get" that the intention is probably noble.
But what's that saying? Something about a road to somewhere being paved with good intentions...
The obvious "first layer" worry is that people...people who might disagree with the Government...could be targeted as potential "COVID spreaders", and thus be subject to detention.
A "Second layer" worry, is just who is an "authorised officer".
You'd think the Police would have a role to play, perhaps in collaboration with Health professionals. But after that?
Well, the article goes on to say:
"The Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Bill, which passed the government-controlled lower house on Friday also allows the government to expand its ranks of authorised officers to include PSOs, WorkSafe inspectors and non-government workers."
So, not only (potentially) do we have a situation where people could be subject to arbitrary detention, but we could also now have a situation where there is an expended cohort of people able to enforce that arbitrary detention.
Something of a potential slippery slope?
I think so.
Apparently, it would seem, I am not alone.
This also from the article:
"The body representing Victoria's barristers has written to the Andrews government warning the proposed laws could breach the state's human rights charter and allow citizens to be placed in arbitrary detention."
And this...
"A group of retired judges and leading QCs has also written to Mr Andrews opposing the emergency measures, which they say would result in "unprecedented, excessive" powers.
The Bar also called on the government to narrow the scope of who can be appointed to enforce public health rules."
You'd reckon they'd have something of a handle on the potential consequences of legislation "as drafted", wouldn't you?
All this from a Government led by a man who famously characterised Civil Liberties as "a luxury".
No mate...they are not.
|