Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
-
The way I read that, is that we don't know anything until the High Court decision in the judicial review. This whole article - including Professor Geddis' views - is speculation based on a leaked draft of Crown Law's advice, not the final advice.
-
As much as I agree that govt decisions require boundaries and oversight sometimes quick action is required and a deliberate stretched interpretation of the law is needed to move quickly.
An extra week without lockdown while a clarification to the Health Act or a legal position is sought may well have resulted in triple that time in lockdown, a deeper spread of the virus and more economic damage.
Surely this is a time to simply say. I think that law was stretched and we need to look at how we might cover these situations better in the future rather than try and claim deliberate illegalities for the sake of power?I would ask these questions.
Was a lockdown needed to stem the spread? Evidence around the world says yes (to varying degrees)
Do we have a current law that allows that decision to be enforced rapidly? No.Therefore was a deliberate stretch of an existing law required? IMO yes.
OK, now sort this out a bit later on rather than diverting energies away from what is more important right at this time.
I will add though that it would be good if the Govt could make these same admissions. 'We were forced to take a liberal interpretation of the clause in order to move quickly'
Also, any law written with leeway is usually so for a purpose. That purpose is often 'as needs require'
-
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial The implications of allowing a government to have a "liberal" interpretation of law is terrifying.
Talk about welcoming your new overlords.
I don't disagree with that sentiment at all.
From what I have seen though the Health Act clause is ambiguous and was left open for interpretation. That is the fault of parliament (if there is a fault).
Yes, it leaves the use open for challenge and confirmation by the courts but liberal interpretation is not necessarily deliberate misuse.
Context is all important as well. Was the interpretation used to enforce unnecessary power?
Again, if there isn't a current law to use for this situation then would you rather that they waited and took higher risks or acted using what they had?
Edit: By all means though they should be told that better laws should be made and if that one wasn't written with this situation in mind then the court can clarify that. If it is decided that we need proper debate and law passing for any possible future pandemic/epidemic situations then they should be forced to follow that process.
-
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I would rather that there was clear law and proper oversight for any government to put the country in house arrest.
If that's not there now then they should be transparent, to use Cindy's favourite word, about the need to fix it.
Agree, just edited my post to be clear about that as you posted.
-
@Crucial Extraordinary times and all that, but the example I use was my family in the US being completely fine about Obama setting up a survellience state there with the NSA essentially recording every phone call.
Pointed out you may be fine with this guy, but what about the next guy? Hilariously, that turned about be Trump and they now get the point.
This is a well trodden path to losing freedoms we take for granted, and it'll happen so slowly we'll be like the proverbial boiled frog.
-
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial Extraordinary times and all that, but the example I use was my family in the US being completely fine about Obama setting up a survellience state there with the NSA essentially recording every phone call.
Pointed out you may be fine with this guy, but what about the next guy? Hilariously, that turned about be Trump and they now get the point.
This is a well trodden path to losing freedoms we take for granted, and it'll happen so slowly we'll be like the proverbial boiled frog.
I'm not sure there is a comparison there. The surveillance stuff was using a situation (terror) to increase govt powers over the individual by passing new laws.
This is use of an existing law that may or may not have been written for the purpose used. It requires clarification but IMO it doesn't require it right at this moment. Energies can be spent better elsewhere.
I would prefer it if the press stopped winding people up about it and concentrated on getting the L2 messages across. The govt should also say 'we welcome clarity of the DGoH's use of the Act and should the courts find that the law needs adjusting we will do so'
The danger is an attitude of 'we will do what we like because we can' -
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial Extraordinary times and all that, but the example I use was my family in the US being completely fine about Obama setting up a survellience state there with the NSA essentially recording every phone call.
Pointed out you may be fine with this guy, but what about the next guy? Hilariously, that turned about be Trump and they now get the point.
This is a well trodden path to losing freedoms we take for granted, and it'll happen so slowly we'll be like the proverbial boiled frog.
I'm not sure there is a comparison there. The surveillance stuff was using a situation (terror) to increase govt powers over the individual by passing new laws.
This is use of an existing law that may or may not have been written for the purpose used. It requires clarification but IMO it doesn't require it right at this moment. Energies can be spent better elsewhere.
I would prefer it if the press stopped winding people up about it and concentrated on getting the L2 messages across. The govt should also say 'we welcome clarity of the DGoH's use of the Act and should the courts find that the law needs adjusting we will do so'
The danger is an attitude of 'we will do what we like because we can'Not that sure what the NSA are doing are covered by any existing laws, but lets not go down that rabbit hole.
The point is an event happens, government reacts with wide reaching powers and then doesn't wind back those powers. Here, we want to ensure that the intial reaction was lawful, and if not have a proper debate on what the law should look like and implement that.
Secondly, these new powers (lawful or not) need to be wound back and not just be the new normal. Creeping death.
-
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I'm not sure there is a comparison there. The surveillance stuff was using a situation (terror) to increase govt powers over the individual by passing new laws.
This is use of an existing law that may or may not have been written for the purpose used. It requires clarification but IMO it doesn't require it right at this moment.I find this passive acceptance of a government knowingly acting possibly ultra vires, using the threat of force on citizens to remove their liberties astonishing.
I would prefer it if the press stopped winding people up about it
I.e. tell the people what we want them to hear...
-
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial Extraordinary times and all that, but the example I use was my family in the US being completely fine about Obama setting up a survellience state there with the NSA essentially recording every phone call.
Pointed out you may be fine with this guy, but what about the next guy? Hilariously, that turned about be Trump and they now get the point.
This is a well trodden path to losing freedoms we take for granted, and it'll happen so slowly we'll be like the proverbial boiled frog.
I'm not sure there is a comparison there. The surveillance stuff was using a situation (terror) to increase govt powers over the individual by passing new laws.
This is use of an existing law that may or may not have been written for the purpose used. It requires clarification but IMO it doesn't require it right at this moment. Energies can be spent better elsewhere.
I would prefer it if the press stopped winding people up about it and concentrated on getting the L2 messages across. The govt should also say 'we welcome clarity of the DGoH's use of the Act and should the courts find that the law needs adjusting we will do so'
The danger is an attitude of 'we will do what we like because we can'Not that sure what the NSA are doing are covered by any existing laws, but lets not go down that rabbit hole.
The point is an event happens, government reacts with wide reaching powers and then doesn't wind back those powers. Here, we want to ensure that the intial reaction was lawful, and if not have a proper debate on what the law should look like and implement that.
Secondly, these new powers (lawful or not) need to be wound back and not just be the new normal. Creeping death.
If anything this shows that we need specific and debated laws around these situations including when they can be triggered into use and when they must be stopped. Specific emergency powers for pandemics maybe?
A google search has come up with this thesis from someone at Otago that covers the need and desire of emergency powers as well as a chapter on when a situation is not specifically covered. Looks to be interesting reading.
-
None of the patients in hospital are in ICU.
One of two new cases of Covid-19 confirmed today is a nurse who has been caring for St Margaret's cluster patients.
Dr McElnay said the nurse is being cared for in North Shore hospital.
The other case reported today was a probable case (from the World Hereford Conference - Queenstown cluster) that has now been confirmed. -
Another 15 recovered, so only 122 current cases. Another cluster closed, George Manning rest home in Christchurch, so 4 clusters are now closed.
We moved into the top 20 nations for tests per capita.
Updated quarantine plans being submitted to MoH for dealing with future cases at level 2.
-
The number of active cases is now 103.
*I think the change in the number of probable cases should say 1:
Today we are reporting two new cases of COVID-19 made up of one confirmed case and one probable case. Both cases are linked to the St Margaret’s Hospital & Rest Home in Auckland. The confirmed case is a household contact of a previously confirmed case linked to the cluster. The probable case is a nurse employed by Waitemata District Health Board who has been in self-isolation and is now regarded a probable case. Both new cases remain in self-isolation at home. Today there are two people in hospital with COVID-19 – one each in Middlemore and North Shore hospitals. Neither is in ICU. We still have 16 significant clusters, four of which are now closed. There are no additional deaths to report. Yesterday our laboratories completed 7,204 tests, bringing the total number of tests completed to date to 183,039. This equates to 3.5% of the population and puts New Zealand in the top 20 countries per capita for testing.
https://www.health.govt.nz/news-media/media-releases/2-new-cases-covid-19-2
-
I dont get the cluster thing, I thought a cluster was 10 or more, they are 'closing' clusters presumably when they get below 10 active, however 16 clusters equals 160 people (or 12 active clusters equals 120) yet we only have 103 active cases?
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I dont get the cluster thing, I thought a cluster was 10 or more, they are 'closing' clusters presumably when they get below 10 active, however 16 clusters equals 160 people (or 12 active clusters equals 120) yet we only have 103 active cases?
Health website says "A COVID-19 cluster is considered be closed (there is no longer transmission of the virus within, or associated with the cluster), after a total of 28 consecutive days – or two incubation periods for the virus – since the most recent report date for a reported case."