Having read the Emergency Management Amendment (Temporary COVID-19 Provisions) Bill 2022 I have a number of concerns which I have not seen addressed.
Firstly, in relation to the seizure of property.
- Could you please advise which indictable criminal offence it is to possibly have a disease?
- Could you advise how confiscating property reduces the risk of spread or cures said disease?
- Could you advise WHO has ministerial oversight over such seizure of property?
- Could you advise the legal implications of doing so without a warrant?
- Why isn’t a warrant required?
- What is the compensation scheme?
In relation to 77N, exposure to SARS-CoV-2 virus, given that vaccines have proven both dangerous and ineffective, how EXACTLY does an authorised officer enforce submission to infection prevention and control?
Further, I have been told that a letter dated 27 April 2022, attaching a legal advice from a barrister, was sent to employers including WA Government Departments. A second advice was sent to the Premier and the Chief Health Officer on 31 May 2022. Each advice outlined the criminality of the Directions issued by the WA Government. I verily believe that the drafting of the Bill, with the insertion of the indemnity clause, seeks to limit your exposure to criminal charges in relation to the future management of the coronavirus endemic (I note the pandemic is effectively ended and is now in the endemic stage).
The following excerpt in relation to torture, which becomes applicable once this Bill becomes law, is from the advice sent to employers on 27 April 2022. I understand that government department heads forwarded the advice to the State Solicitor’s Office, and believe Mr McGowan was advised that the State Solicitor’s initial advice that the directions were not enforceable was correct.
Torture, cruel and inhuman treatment
“Torture, cruel and inhuman treatment The Australian Human Right Commission Act 1986 (Cth) gives effect to Australia’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides in Article 7 that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation”.
And, relevantly, despite this Act being created to deprive the citizens of Western Australia of their human rights, we are citizens of Australia and enjoy the protection of section 268.23 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) provides that a person (the perpetrator ) commits an offence if the perpetrator causes great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health, by means of an inhumane act; and the act is of a character similar to another proscribed inhumane act . .. and the perpetrator’s conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. Penalty: Imprisonment for 25 years.”
For section 77N in relation to submit to infection prevention – this is a medical procedure and a matter of health – a police officer is not trained to make medical or health decisions and does not have the capacity to assess the medical risk posed to an individual. So why does the government think that a bureaucrat can decide to send an appointed COVID-19 officer to someone’s home to force submission to a medical procedure where there may be contra-indications?
Given that an authorised officer is not required by this legislation to have any medical training, how can an authorised officer guarantee that their efforts will be effective?
When under Section 77P, a person proves that an officer disclosed information NOT in good faith, what is the disciplinary measure for the officer.?
Given that you refer to a specific virus, why is there no specific terms of reference to the establishment of Covid-19 declaration or state of emergency.
I note that is NO provision to ensure a person is free from frivolous or fraudulent claims made against them. Is this a deliberate act in order to intimidate political opponents?
A case can be made that voting in favour of this Bill makes you an accessory to any crimes committed against the citizens of Western Australia. While the Nuremberg Trials might seem like a distant memory the effect remains in force. I beg you to remember that the electorate voted you in to parliament represent them and their best interests, voting in favour of this Bill because you have an obligation to vote the party line is not your job. Your job is to serve the people of Western Australia.
I urge you to vote against this Bill when the Legislative Council votes on it, I urge you to reject authoritarianism. This Bill is bad law and will cause more harm than good.
List of WA members