Coronavirus/COVID-19

Remove this Banner Ad

D Mitchell

Premiership Player
Jul 28, 2006
4,720
2,093
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Football Club
C'mon, Mr. Mitchell. Surely Norm's ancestors weren't even around when the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was written. If they were able to have an opinion on it, then who is to say they wouldn't agree that it grants too much power to the minister? Opinions will differ over in-force legislation. Nothing wrong with that.
Hello, Scrag. What was, effectively, the Full Court of the Federal Court has settled the extent of the Minister's discretion. Djokovic can still take it to the High Court. You are falling into bad company. I seriously thought you were better, very disappointing. Which of my posts do you claim was sarcastic ? I did ask before, just the number will do. If you can't find it, will you
(a) claim I deleted it; or
(b) admit it doesn't exist and apologise ?

I'll take your failure to respond to be an admission that there is no such post, that you just made it up and won't object when I add that fact to any post I make that refers to you.risis
?
Apols, again, Scragg, an over reaction. The Migration Act and Regulations made under the Act set out the conditions of immigration. As with every other piece of legislation, the Government, through the Minister, retains a discretion to accommodate unusual circumstances and ensure that the intention of the legislation is realised. The discretion is not absolute, the Minister isn't a dictator. Djokovic hadn't complied with the rules, there was a confusion, well, to me anyway, about how policy was administered. Hawke achieved what the legislation set out to achieve, exclusion of the non vaccinated, that's why the discretion is available, that's what happened. Djokovic isn't a victim, he should never have been given a visa in the first place. Big tick for the Minister's discretion. Good guys and guys ? I'd have thought that Hawke was the good guy.
 
Last edited:
Sep 7, 2015
15,620
35,945
AFL Club
Tasmania
I'll take your failure to respond to be an admission that there is no such post, that you just made it up and won't object when I add that fact to any post I make that refers to you.

That won't play in court.

EVIDENCE ACT 2008 - SECT 89​

Evidence of silence
(1) In a criminal proceeding, an inference unfavourable to a party must not be drawn from evidence that the party or another person failed or refused—

(a) to answer one or more questions; or

(b) to respond to a representation—

put or made to the party or other person by an investigating official who at that time was performing functions in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence.

(2) Evidence of that kind is not admissible if it can only be used to draw such an inference.

(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent use of the evidence to prove that the party or other person failed or refused to answer the question or to respond to the representation if the failure or refusal is a fact in issue in the proceeding.



(4) In this section, "inference" includes—

(a) an inference of consciousness of guilt; or

(b) an inference relevant to a party's credibility.
 

D Mitchell

Premiership Player
Jul 28, 2006
4,720
2,093
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Football Club
That won't play in court.

EVIDENCE ACT 2008 - SECT 89​

Evidence of silence
(1) In a criminal proceeding, an inference unfavourable to a party must not be drawn from evidence that the party or another person failed or refused—

(a) to answer one or more questions; or

(b) to respond to a representation—

put or made to the party or other person by an investigating official who at that time was performing functions in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence.

(2) Evidence of that kind is not admissible if it can only be used to draw such an inference.

(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent use of the evidence to prove that the party or other person failed or refused to answer the question or to respond to the representation if the failure or refusal is a fact in issue in the proceeding.



(4) In this section, "inference" includes—

(a) an inference of consciousness of guilt; or

(b) an inference relevant to a party's credibility.
My over reaction, Scrag. Well done for looking that up although the criminal provisions are not quite the right place. It's a pity others don't do that too.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sep 7, 2015
15,620
35,945
AFL Club
Tasmania
Apols, again, Scragg, an over reaction.

No worries. I wasn't trying to agitate you. I apologise for being thin-skinned before. If I'd paid enough attention I should have been able to deduce who the good guys were. I was leading with the chin again.

The Migration Act and Regulations made under the Act set out the conditions of immigration. As with every other piece of legislation, the Government, through the Minister, retains a discretion to accommodate unusual circumstances and ensure that the intention of the legislation is realised. The discretion is not absolute, the Minister isn't a dictator. Djokovic hadn't complied with the rules, there was a confusion, well, to me anyway, about how policy was administered. Hawke achieved what the legislation set out to achieve, exclusion of the non vaccinated, that's why the discretion is available, that's what happened. Djokovic isn't a victim, he should never have been given a visa in the first place. Big tick for the Minister's discretion. Good guys and guys ? I'd have thought that Hawke was the good guy.

Thanks for the detailed response. I wish I'd be able to watch it. Hopefully I can find time to read through it later.
 
Last edited:
If you'd watched proceedings after 1.00 pm, nothing "God" like. Discretions are fettered. Wood and Djokovic ran their case as a lower jurisdiction facts based case, the way that they did in the Circuit Court (formerly known as the Federal Magistrates Court). When heard by what is really a Court of Appeal, where issues of law apply rather than procedural niceties, a far different result. A good day for the rule of law.
What was Wood doing there? Are they trying to deport him as well?

Ch 7 were telling us that his 6/37 were the second best bowling figures by a Pom in Australia this century. Pretty annoying I agree, but we were well on the way to victory anyway so it's hardly grounds for deportation.

Is there nothing this Minister will stop at to curry favour with the voters?
 

D Mitchell

Premiership Player
Jul 28, 2006
4,720
2,093
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Football Club
What was Wood doing there? Are they trying to deport him as well?

Ch 7 were telling us that his 6/37 were the second best bowling figures by a Pom in Australia this century. Pretty annoying I agree, but we were well on the way to victory anyway so it's hardly grounds for deportation.

Is there nothing this Minister will stop at to curry favour with the voters?
(smiles weakly) I wasted the afternoon and early evening worrying about the fate of the nation and one of he Channel 9s had an afternoon of 60s Westerns. . When Lloyd, not Biggles, Lloyd QC, was in action, I could see why the Govt proceeded, he made the issue the parameters and exercise of the Ministerial discretion rather than quality of evidence. He cut Djokovic off at the knees, to use Woods' words, by moving away from consideration of evidence. It might have been different before Kelly. Stepping back, the exercise achieved what the legislation set out to achieve in the first place, exclusion of the un vaccinated. That's why Ministers retain discretions. A good result for the rule of law but the Feds really have to tighten up their procedures. Serbia, New Zealand, France, China. Can it now be said that Australia plays Hawthornesque unfriendly diplomacy ?
 
Last edited:

D Mitchell

Premiership Player
Jul 28, 2006
4,720
2,093
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Football Club
No worries. I wasn't trying to agitate you. I apologise for being thin-skinned before. If I'd paid enough attention I should have been able to deduce who the good guys were. I was leading with the chin again.



Thanks for the detailed response. I wish I'd be able to watch it. Hopefully I can find time to read through it later.
It wasn't sexy listening / viewing but gee, Wood and Lloyd (the 2 barristers) are good. I missed some pretty good cricket, from all accounts. Apols again, I saw insult where none was there.
 

TommyD13

Premiership Player
Jul 31, 2016
3,136
2,414
Adelaide
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Adelaide United Southampton
The rules in terms of isolation are a bit grey IMO. Baring in mind I am from south Australia and have just become a close contact. Did my first RAT today which is negative. My exposure was on Wednesday, and the contact tested positive Friday. From what I count, say 6 is Tuesday which I am supposed to get tested again. But if I am isolating for 7 days as far as I can tell I remain isolated all of Wednesday too and go back into the community Thursday. In this case, wouldn’t it make much more sense to test Wednesday evening rather than Tuesday?
 
If you'd watched proceedings after 1.00 pm, nothing "God" like. Discretions are fettered. Wood and Djokovic ran their case as a lower jurisdiction facts based case, the way that they did in the Circuit Court (formerly known as the Federal Magistrates Court). When heard by what is really a Court of Appeal, where issues of law apply rather than procedural niceties, a far different result. A good day for the rule of law.
This is for you DM.

It shows how extensive the Minister's discretion is and how much of it is not appellable.

These powers are non-compellable (meaning the minister cannot be required by a court to exercise them). And if exercised correctly, the minister’s decisions are, in effect, unable to be reviewed by the courts.

It also gives several examples of how the powers can be used unjustly or for motives that are not necessarily in the public interest. It quotes a former LNP minister (McPhee) who describes it thus:

The sheer breadth of the minister’s discretionary power ensures that unfair decisions will be made in haste and rarely subject to objective review. The law and its practice is now unjust. It is un-Australian.

It also provides the origin of the expression "god-like" powers ... none other than a former Minister for Immigration!


Don't mention it. Glad to be of assistance.
 

D Mitchell

Premiership Player
Jul 28, 2006
4,720
2,093
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Football Club
This is for you DM.
...
Thanks, well, a heavily qualified thanks. Articles like that, generalised and lacking specifics, e g the Minister for migration has more discretions than any other Minister, are nigh on impossible to comment upon by anyone, like me, without knowledge of migration matters. The allegation that the Minister's exercise of a discretion is non reviewable is plainly wrong, the Djokovic hearing was a review. I remember the au pair girls issue because of the send ups, comedians had a field day. The Ruddock smear says more about the author than Ruddock, there was an enquiry which came up with nothing. The way I saw it, Djokovic ran his appeal on the lack and quality of evidence, barely touching upon whether the discretion was exercised properly. Hawk ran his defence on the basis that he had exercised it correctly and was entitled to make the decision he made. At least 2 Federal Court Judges agreed with him. It was a good decision because it upheld the intent of the rule, the exclusion of the non vaccinated. It wasn't an anti-Djokovic decision. Fingers are now pointing at Tiley.
 

footscray1973

Premiership Player
May 17, 2004
4,998
9,431
Pepperland
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray
From Ballarat Courier just now:

1642467640172.png




Staff on days off at Ballarat, RCH, Geelong and other hospitals have been getting daily texts for weeks now asking them to
work on their (well-earned) days off due to constant staff shortages.

Allied health services running multiple clinics across the north west have had to close clinics due to chronic under-staffing,
sometimes for days at a time.

But don't worry, THERE IS NO CRISIS IN THE HEALTH SYSTEM.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

footscray1973

Premiership Player
May 17, 2004
4,998
9,431
Pepperland
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray
Quick, someone tell The Age, Channel 7, ABC and 3AW that THERE IS NO CRISIS.



 
Quick, someone tell The Age, Channel 7, ABC and 3AW that THERE IS NO CRISIS.



Yep, just clickbait headlines and selective anecdotes. Carry on.
 
Sep 22, 2008
25,502
34,595
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
So do we think we’ve peaked in daily case numbers? Hard to know but hopefully we’re there or not far off. 450k cases in the past two weeks, probably closer to what 5-10x that number in the community?

Obviously the hospitals are struggling right now but hopefully we just need to get through the next couple of weeks and we can start to see that pressure ease a little bit.
 

footscray1973

Premiership Player
May 17, 2004
4,998
9,431
Pepperland
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray
statement


What is a crisis ? Check your dictionary. If a piece by someone claiming to be a doctor signed Anonymous and first produced by Scrag, unacknowledged or sourced, followed by an ABC report based upon what a Tamworth Nurses Union official thinks might happen in the future, is sufficient to justify Health networks across the country are under-staffed, and under pressure, and have been throughout the pandemic. .....the experienced staff exiting the system are in addition to the normal attrition rates that existed pre-COVID. So net staff levels are falling in many areas and that constitutes a Crisis, then, either you have no knowledge of the meaning of the word crisis or, if you do, although nobody has said it yet, I will now. The health system is not in crisis.

If there were huge numbers of patients dying because of lack of staffing or lying on trolleys in hospital hallways dying because there are no facilities, then you might be able to use the word crisis but not on the basis of an anonymous, unacknowledged anecdote and that ABC piece. That's no going to happen in Victoria because there are fewer than 400 patients in in ICU beds where there are supposed to 4,400 such beds available. If you, or any of the other very few who claim a health crisis can come up with some credible verification i e beyond anecdotes or media sensationalist headlines, I'll be prepared to change my mind. I've seen nothing worthwhile to suggest anything remotely approaching a crisis.

So this post aged well. The govt and the health system good enough source for you?

I'll let you in on a secret. I've had you on ignore for months, due to your condescending and pompous posting. You give off a "I think I'm the smartest guy in the room vibe". Another poster alerted me to this reply to my post, so in this instance I will address it.

Here's another secret. Apart from my own intimate knowledge of the health sector, I have a spouse, other immediate family members and close mates I went right through school with who are variously paediatric ICU nurses with decades of experience, one of the most senior ambos in the state, senior manager and health professional of a large allied health service, anaesthetists, doctors and a hospital administrator. Between them, they work in 2 of the largest regional hospitals in the state, the RCH, a large public and a large private northern hospital and the Alfred. These are people I speak to on almost a daily basis. They work in ICU, ED, theatre, PICU and NICU wards, often with COVID cases.

So I'd take their inside knowledge over an ignoramus like yourself, who likes to lecture people on a subject you have zero knowledge about.

I know what a crisis is. I suspect you don't even know where you left your spectacles 5 minutes ago.

Good day.
 
So do we think we’ve peaked in daily case numbers? Hard to know but hopefully we’re there or not far off. 450k cases in the past two weeks, probably closer to what 5-10x that number in the community?

Obviously the hospitals are struggling right now but hopefully we just need to get through the next couple of weeks and we can start to see that pressure ease a little bit.
There are certainly some indications but as you say it’s hard to know, with the case numbers being clearly incomplete.

From the ABC website:

Health authorities are confident the peak in this Omicron wave may be imminent​

But massive changes to the way the virus is being managed in Australia means there's a lot of uncertainty.

Data analyst Casey Briggs explains.

"National case numbers are plateauing or even falling, but that picture is muddled by an artificial spike when rapid tests were first counted and a fundamental shift in the way Australia measures the virus.
"The better indicator for the peak of this wave may be hospitalisations, which are still increasing.
"But in New South Wales, hospital admissions look to have stopped accelerating. It may be slowing, which would be the precursor to a bending in the curve.
"Other states may not be far behind. In Queensland, growth in hospital admissions is more or less steady, which could be the first sign of an improvement to come."
 
There are certainly some indications but as you say it’s hard to know, with the case numbers being clearly incomplete.

From the ABC website:

Health authorities are confident the peak in this Omicron wave may be imminent​

But massive changes to the way the virus is being managed in Australia means there's a lot of uncertainty.

Data analyst Casey Briggs explains.
Wonder what proportion of rapid tests are reported
 
Mar 15, 2012
8,186
23,727
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
And also what proportion of symptomatic people can’t get a rapid test and CBF queueing for hours for a PCR?
It seems that PCR test queues are significantly shorter than they were prior to the rule change (as you'd expect). It obviously varies but I've had a few family members get tested separately in recent days and they've been in and out in less than an hour, with results arriving same day or next morning.
 
Don't know if this has been mentioned, but just heard on the radio (medical/nurse spokesperson) that nurses don't have priority access to RAT tests (i.e. they, don't have priority for a public test nor do they get any to take home). They can only be tested if they come into work. So if you are a nurse with someone at home who has tested positive, you have to go into work (after your 40 minute commute or whatever), get a test at your place of work & if you are positive you get sent home. That means your place of work is down a staff member for the shift. That's a disgrace. They should be provided with RAT for home use.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back