Fear the South Australian Move from Emergency Declaration to Public Health Act By John Reed (Adelaide)
We in South Australia are getting our first taste of life under the Labor regime, hard labour at that, not that the Liberals were any better on anything. Still, this is what we now face, the toughest penalties in Australia for violation of the legislation to be enshrined in the Public Health Act. Two years jail or $ 20,000 fines for individuals, and business, a fine of $ 75, 000. This has disturbed the opposition and independents, but there is not much that can be done, given the typical knee-jerk reaction of the sheeple in the last state election, throwing everything to Labor. They could have put into power many independents, but did not do so, because if the truth be known, we opposing the Covid mandates are a minority, sadly. And, this is what you get. What has been done here in South Australia will almost certainly be replicated in other states, without strong political resistance. Please take note of this for Saturday! Maybe things will change after CCP Shanghai-style lockdowns are imposed for months, if not years, with the next, coming plandemic.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-17/sa-covid-management-bill-set-to-pass/101073360
“New premier Peter Malinauskas has repeatedly made it clear his desire to stop using the Emergency Management Act to help maintain a level of control over the pandemic.
It was a desire the former Liberal government also had but they did not end up getting changes through parliament during the previous term.
The proposed legislative reforms presented to parliament this month would allow SA Health to put controls in place through modifications to the Public Health Act.
"When the declaration ends, it is important that we still have some protections in place for our most vulnerable South Australians," Mr Malinauskas said.
"The most appropriate way we can do this is to amend the Public Health Act to include protections for patients and residents in aged care, hospitals and disability care, and the ability for rules to be set for COVID-positive people and close contacts."
Broad community-wide controls, like lockdowns, would not be possible under the new laws once the emergency declaration ends.
But they could be implemented once more if a new declaration were to be issued.
Concerns over penalties
In a letter obtained by ABC News, the Law Society of South Australia has outlined a raft of concerns it sees with the changes as they currently sit.
Chief among them is that they give the government what the society has branded as "wide-ranging powers" to enforce COVID directions.
"Enshrining such extraordinary powers in legislation permanently must be carefully considered and accompanied by some guarantee of proportionality with respect to ensuring an individual's basic rights and freedoms when such powers are exercised," Law Society president Justin Stewart-Rattray wrote.
He added the society has reservations about how close contacts are defined and the scope of directions, branding them "concerningly opaque."
While the Liberal opposition wants to move on from the Emergency Management Act being used to handle COVID, the party has its own reservations, including with the size of the proposed penalties in the bill.
The current changes would see maximum penalties of two years in jail or a $20,000 fine for individuals who fail to comply with directions.
For a business, the fine jumps to $75,000.
"Decreases in penalties to remove imprisonment and reduce maximum sanctions by a third are important and will see the state become more aligned with penalties in other jurisdictions," opposition health spokeswoman Ashton Hurn said.
What happens next?
The Liberals are expected to introduce amendments to the laws in the Upper House but the government said it is yet to see them.
"This is very serious legislation. We are trying to deal with it on a constructive basis," Health Minister Chris Picton said.
"We actually need to see proposals, not just by press release but by the actual amendment work being done from the Liberal Party to be considered in the Parliament."
Freshly elected One Nation MLC Sarah Game has flagged her intention to introduce amendments too, which she said will safeguard democracy and "fundamental individual rights".
"This is an attempt to permanently enshrine COVID-19 powers while removing legislative safeguards under the Public Health Act, that until now have only been exercised under a declared emergency," Ms Game said.
"This is not democratic, this is not 'living with' COVID-19 and this is not what South Australians voted for."
But it is what they will get so long as the sheeple continue to vote for the major parties.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1322802061581483
“Australia's newest coronavirus dictator: 'Power hungry' South Australian Labor premier introduces $75k fines and prison time for those who break tough Covid rules
- South Australia set to introduce the harshest Covid penalties in Australia
- Under new laws anyone found breaching Covid rules could face two years in jail
- Businesses breaking the rules can be fined 75k while individuals face 20k fines
- State Opposition and civil liberties groups voiced their concern over the move
- Anyone found breaching Covid rules in South Australiacould be punished with two years jail as new laws are set to sail through state parliament this week.
- Labor Premier Peter Malinauskas orchestrated a shock cross-bench deal with support from the Greens and SA Best, but the opposition and civil liberties groups have voiced their fury at the move.
'Labor did a quick backroom deal because Peter Malinauskas is desperate to have the power to lock up (people) and dish out huge Covid-19 fines at the drop of a hat,' a Liberal Party spokesperson told the Adelaide Advertiser.
Under the Public Health Act legislation, individuals who breach isolation requirements, or ignore vaccination mandates and mask rules in high-risk settings such as hospitals or nursing homes, can be fined $20,000 or face two years in prison.
Businesses found to be breaking those rules can be hit with a massive $75,000 fine.
The rules set to take effect on June 30 will be the most extreme in any jurisdiction in Australia.
The maximum penalty for Covid breaches in New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania is six months jail, while Victoria, NT and ACT only issue fines for rule breakers.
Premier Peter Malinauskas said the changes will replace the current Emergency Declaration with an amendment to the bill allowing a six-month period to assess the legislation.
'I continue to acknowledge and absolutely thank the work of both the Police Commissioner and Professor Nicola Spurrier in seeing the state through the events of Covid using that emergency management declaration,' he said.
NEW COVID FINES IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Under the proposed laws, those who commit 'serious' breaches of Covid rules could face up to two years in prison or a $20,000 fine.
This is for those who enter high-risk settings such as care homes or hospitals while knowingly infected with Covid.
Those who breach vaccine mandates in those settings could also be hit with the new penalties, as well as those who refuse to wear face masks when visiting or working there.
But clearly we are coming to a period where that time is over and we start to restore the ordinary functioning of government in a traditional way.'
The Premier claims the strict laws are needed to protect the 'most vulnerable South Australians'.
'The most appropriate way we can do this is to amend the Public Health Act to include protections for patients and residents in aged care, hospitals and disability care, and the ability for rules to be set for Covid-positive people and close contacts.'
Lockdowns and other community-wide restrictions are not included in the new bill, with stay-at-home orders still needing to be enacted with an Emergency Declaration.
The Law Society of South Australia say the powers are 'concerningly opaque' and do not clearly define what a close contact is.
'Enshrining such extraordinary powers in legislation permanently must be carefully considered and accompanied by some guarantee of proportionality with respect to ensuring an individual's basic rights and freedoms when such powers are exercised,' Law Society president Justin Stewart-Rattray wrote in an open letter.
'The Society is concerned that the definition of 'close contact' is left open… The lack of detail within the provision renders the potential scope of such directions concerningly opaque, particularly noting that the proposal is for the Government to permanently entrench some of these powers in the Public Health Act.'
The civil liberties group notes the definition of 'close contact' changed several times during the pandemic.
'Less than six months ago it included those who had simply attended a listed exposure site at a particular time,' the letter said.
The Bill is set to pass through the state Senate before the end of the week.”
Comments