Could NSW benefit from VIC knockdown with net positive migration?

Discussion in 'Property Market Economics' started by Illusivedreams, 7th Aug, 2020.

Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
  1. albanga

    albanga Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,701
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Well Put. To Be Honest i cannot believe this isn't on every front page and TV station running24 hour around the clock.

    But you have missed the other point being anyone deemed as being a "supe spreader" and ta specifically relates to anyone with a voice that doesnt fit to the government narrative.
     
  2. Melbourne_guy

    Melbourne_guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4th Aug, 2019
    Posts:
    499
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I have no idea whether better wording could have been chosen but I try to put this into a context before making judgements. I read the entire part of Section 200A but here is part (2):

    (2) A person is a high risk person if— (a) the person has been notified that the person has been diagnosed 25 with COVID-19 and has not been given clearance from self-isolation in accordance with the applicable requirements; or
    (b) the person has been notified in 30 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;


    How do you deal with someone who is a known to have contracted coronavirus or is a close contact of a coronavirus positive person but constantly refuses to be tested, believing their rights to remain active within the community and wider society are above the rights of the community?

    We saw earlier on tens of thousands in some of Melbourne's initial lockdown #2 suburbs refuse to be tested for whatever reason. Given the spread of the virus in those suburbs, it is likely there were a few who went undetected. Is that individual selfishness fair on the rest of the community? Having spent the best part of 6 months in single isolation I've no qualms with this type of enforcement to protect my health and the health of the wider community.
     
  3. albanga

    albanga Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,701
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Really??? POLICE OFFICERS are already breaking the law under their misguided powers granted to them.

    Can you honestly read that and feel even slightly comfortable to the potential power given to basically anyone.

    You think security guards like those who put us in this mess are trustworthy to protect you??

    You honestly believe those “high risk” persons isn’t open to abuse of the highest magnitude. I’m a sane peaceful person and could think of 50 ways to make that fit to my likings.

    Give me a break!! This is madness.
     
  4. Melbourne_guy

    Melbourne_guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4th Aug, 2019
    Posts:
    499
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Don't conflate the general principle of preventing people with coronavirus freely mixing within the community that I am in favour of with the implementation of that general principle which you refer too.

    If there is no legal means at the moment to hold someone positively identified with coronavirus, what legal means would you take to prevent this? If this law is so poorly worded that it breaks the constitution, it doesn't remove the need to have an alternative to immediately remove selfish infected people mixing within the larger community.

    I'd be unhappy if after I have spent the best part of 6 months literally in social isolation, there were no consequences for someone knowingly infected going out into the community at large. At the least, I want them removed from society as a matter of priority and don't really care of their thoughts.

    As to the rest of the Amendments, I only read small segments it may be draconian and excessive in other areas. The few other small parts I did read was relevant to Victorian tenancies and from that brief look, it didn't look favourable for landlords.
     
    AlphabetSoup likes this.
  5. albanga

    albanga Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,701
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Your missing the point.
    I have no issue with this being enforced by people with the authority and TRAINING.
    This bill opens up the law to basically allow untrained unprofessionals to go around detaining people.
    Ticket inspectors, security guards, Private police....etc.etc
     
    jaybean likes this.
  6. Melbourne_guy

    Melbourne_guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4th Aug, 2019
    Posts:
    499
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I'm not missing the point - we appear to be in agreement that there is a need to have some type of enforcement to prevent further public infection. The issue then isn't the introduction of the law but it's implementation which is a different discussion topic.

    Although I don't hold Dan Andrews personally responsible, it is to be hoped he has learnt a valuable lesson from the quarantine hotel debacle.
     
    albanga likes this.