Thread by @Voice4Victoria

A discussion 🧵 on govt mandates, employees & business owners. Note that this is VIC specific.

First up, this is the published mandates, which are No.5.

Technically speaking the wider mandate for 'all authorised workers' is NOT currently in place. There is nothing signed off. This happened with construction, they only passed the mandate at the 11th hour (literally).

The fact it isn't in right place now leaves a big legal ? for any biz demanding vx status or firing employees with no legal mandate there. What most biz owners also aren't being told is even if there's a mandate, it may not protect them from federal law obligations to employees.

Business owners are being put, in simple terms, in a sh*t sandwich by the govts. There is no guarantee that a mandate protects them from other obligations by the employee, or even action via FairWork. All should be seeking legal advice (per FairWork) before firing any staff.

Also, if mandated & a negative reaction occurs - someone has to be liable. If VIC goes the same route as NSW, it'll likely be the business owner who's responsible. Only aware of one family that's discussed options with a lawyer so far, but this shouldn't be an unknown risk.

In short, if you're a business owner - legal advice may be a good idea. Don't think for a second any of these govts wouldn't hang you out to dry.
In reverse, if you're an employee getting threatened, legal advice/FairWork may be a good idea.

Lawyers always win in govt disasters.

On the Oct 21 date our SOE gets renewed by Sutton rolling monthly - no Parl needed. This can only continue until Dec. However they can only make the rules in the current active period so they only go up to the next renewal date. They can be made at any point up until then though.

The CHO has and will always renew it - even with zero cases, as all states use it to run quarantine - and there's nothing any member of Parl can do, until Dec . Any screengrabs or campaigns online claiming otherwise aren't accurate.

Now this is interesting. The first vx mandate signed off, No 1, was by Sutton. Every vx mandate since has been signed by an Acting CHO. If any of these get challenged in court it's the signatory who gets challenged, as we learnt with the curfew case. So Sutton stays safe. Hmm.

Following the NSW SC arguments today from the lawyer for the govt, I'm becoming more & more convinced these smash mandates are a bluff before he loses SOE.
I'll elaborate.
No SOE = no mandates.
Simple as that. If Dan gets the max % vxd before then, he looks like a winner.

Come Dec, the govt has issues. Very viable legal argument that 85%+ fully vxd isn't an emergency anymore. Means he needs new legislation to have any powers at all, which has to pass but it's essentially impossible to pass the current powers as they'd conflict with other elements.

Examples: VIC charter of human rights, privacy act, goods & services act etc. Could be wrong, but new ones can't conflict so big '?'.
Only one possibly viable is them attempting 'no jab, no school' for teens, which obviously got leaked by the HS. See this as the most likely risk.

The idea they'd get mandating a gardener (or something equally stupid) being vxd through Parl, just can't see it happening. Which means VIC may be real-time living through the NSW bluff of "it's only temporary". That new VIC court case is likely to help this process along nicely.

Nothing helps govts remove dumb rules like fresh litigation 🙂 sincerely hope to see more come out challenging legalities (in attempts to prevent this ever getting repeated) not just from employees but businesses sick of copping the brunt of the govts bs. Fun times ahead for VIC.