Jacinda Ardern sued over lockdown

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern sued over lockdown

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 18

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2479689 9-May-2020 11:59

BarTender:

I really need to pull up the decries of destroying the economy during that time before Australia followed NZs approach to close the borders to non-citizens? Remember that NZ moved before Australia.

They moved on the same day:

March 19: All non-citizens and non-residents are banned from entering the country from 9pm, March 21. Citizens and family must self-quarantine for 14 days.

https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/covid-19-from-outbreak-to-global-pandemic/3977409/

The following day, 19 March...

For the first time in history, the government closes the country's borders to all but New Zealand citizens and permanent residents.

https://shorthand.radionz.co.nz/coronavirus-timeline/

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2479690 9-May-2020 12:02

No part of my criticism of what the Government we actually have did requires me to defend a hypothetical National response. As said elsewhere, that isn't how accountability works.

But thanks for making up a hypothetical situation rather than responding to the points I was actually making. You're extremely quick to accuse others of living in an 'alternate reality' but it appears you're living in one where literally nothing about the Government response can be questioned.

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2479691 9-May-2020 12:08

tdgeek: AFAIK SB supported the lockdown. So he supported and was aware of the implications. Should he have been honest and not supported it? That would have been widely unpopular so he seemed to go along for the ride, supporting it, to avoid a political backwash. I also don't recall way back then, of National raising the issue of the lockdown being unlawful. Why is that? Now that the lockdown has worked, its now a problem. Maybe he thought L4 would not affect businesses but L3 would? /s

Find me the first public statement when SB or anyone from the National Front Bench supported the lockdown.

The proactive releases show that border restrictions were being seriously investigated on the 12 of March

Mass gatherings were cancelled on the 18th of March.

From what I saw National only changed their position on the 19th of March, since even the day prior to in Parliament it was business as usual and National were behaving terribly.

There is many references I can find where the National party, the party at the time who were the largest party by polling numbers. I have no doubt that the Labour would have easily worked with the Greens but suspect there would have been plenty of push back from NZF. If Labour had acted unilaterally early then National would have gone even more ballistic than they are now.

I know I live in Wellington and see a lot more of the beltway but seriously.. I would have thought it was obvious that Labour had to slowly take the country on a journey to let everyone know how serious it is. The fact it happened from the first case to complete L4 lockdown is IMHO a master class in clear and concise communication from the Government and MoH.

If there are any supportive indications from National party members prior to the 19th that a country wide lockdown or realistic approach for closure of the borders more than 4 days in advance from when the Government announced it I would love to see it. As we all know these things need to be planned and not dropped without warning. So I think working at pace it would have been planned at least 4+ days in advance.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2479695 9-May-2020 12:13

BarTender:

tdgeek: AFAIK SB supported the lockdown. So he supported and was aware of the implications. Should he have been honest and not supported it? That would have been widely unpopular so he seemed to go along for the ride, supporting it, to avoid a political backwash. I also don't recall way back then, of National raising the issue of the lockdown being unlawful. Why is that? Now that the lockdown has worked, its now a problem. Maybe he thought L4 would not affect businesses but L3 would? /s

Find me the first public statement when SB or anyone from the National Front Bench supported the lockdown.

The proactive releases show that border restrictions were being seriously investigated on the 12 of March

Mass gatherings were cancelled on the 18th of March.

From what I saw National only changed their position on the 19th of March, since even the day prior to in Parliament it was business as usual and National were behaving terribly.

There is many references I can find where the National party, the party at the time who were the largest party by polling numbers. I have no doubt that the Labour would have easily worked with the Greens but suspect there would have been plenty of push back from NZF. If Labour had acted unilaterally early then National would have gone even more ballistic than they are now.

I know I live in Wellington and see a lot more of the beltway but seriously.. I would have thought it was obvious that Labour had to slowly take the country on a journey to let everyone know how serious it is. The fact it happened from the first case to complete L4 lockdown is IMHO a master class in clear and concise communication from the Government and MoH.

If there are any supportive indications from National party members prior to the 19th that a country wide lockdown or realistic approach for closure of the borders more than 4 days in advance from when the Government announced it I would love to see it. As we all know these things need to be planned and not dropped without warning. So I think working at pace it would have been planned at least 4+ days in advance.

Im not disagreeing with you, but agreeing. My point was that National stated they supported the lockdown, now they say its not lawful, and that its too much. I'll look for the link. It beats me that they say they support it (L4) then they say the economy is screwed. Did they not think L4 would affect the economy?

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2479698 9-May-2020 12:17

GV27:

BarTender:

I really need to pull up the decries of destroying the economy during that time before Australia followed NZs approach to close the borders to non-citizens? Remember that NZ moved before Australia.

They moved on the same day:

March 19: All non-citizens and non-residents are banned from entering the country from 9pm, March 21. Citizens and family must self-quarantine for 14 days.

https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/covid-19-from-outbreak-to-global-pandemic/3977409/

The following day, 19 March...

For the first time in history, the government closes the country's borders to all but New Zealand citizens and permanent residents.

https://shorthand.radionz.co.nz/coronavirus-timeline/

From the above RNZ link:

- 14 March: The New Zealand Government announces anyone entering the country must self-isolate for 14 days, except those arriving from the Pacific. Cruise ships are banned from the country. Strict border measures for people travelling from New Zealand to the Pacific are put in place, including health assessment requirements.

So isn't that as good as an effective ban?

Australia hadn't done anywhere near as tight a lockdown until the 19th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia

So can you concede that the NZ Government made a significant decision to move 5 days earlier on the 14th rather than the joint NZ-AU date of the 19th?

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2479700 9-May-2020 12:23

tdgeek: Im not disagreeing with you, but agreeing. My point was that National stated they supported the lockdown, now they say its not lawful, and that its too much. I'll look for the link. It beats me that they say they support it (L4) then they say the economy is screwed. Did they not think L4 would affect the economy?

I hear you, to me National always seem to be complaining as to me they think it is the only way for them to find a way to remain relevant.

It never seems to be about actual accountability or working constructively for the best outcome of the whole country. National seem to only be focused on petty politics focusing and exposing wedge issues.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41071

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2479705 9-May-2020 12:28

Meanwhile, the UK is now considering a 14-day quarantine to air passengers - possibly from end of May.

Talk about moving too late...

Can't people just admit a government did the right thing - a few days earlier or later depending on your preference, without letting their political bias show?

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2479708 9-May-2020 12:30

BarTender:

- 14 March: The New Zealand Government announces anyone entering the country must self-isolate for 14 days, except those arriving from the Pacific. Cruise ships are banned from the country. Strict border measures for people travelling from New Zealand to the Pacific are put in place, including health assessment requirements.

So isn't that as good as an effective ban?

Australia hadn't done anywhere near as tight a lockdown until the 19th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia

So can you concede that the NZ Government made a significant decision to move 5 days earlier on the 14th rather than the joint NZ-AU date of the 19th?

No, because they enacted travel bans at the same time. Selfisolation is different to a travel ban. I feel like this is not a hard concept to grasp.

Also, it's not 'as good' as a ban if you shift the deadline for arrivals being required to self-isolate so more people can arrive into the country without having to self-isolate, or you aren't following up arrivals who make sure they are actually self-isolating.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2479710 9-May-2020 12:36

BarTender:

tdgeek: Im not disagreeing with you, but agreeing. My point was that National stated they supported the lockdown, now they say its not lawful, and that its too much. I'll look for the link. It beats me that they say they support it (L4) then they say the economy is screwed. Did they not think L4 would affect the economy?

I hear you, to me National always seem to be complaining as to me they think it is the only way for them to find a way to remain relevant.

It never seems to be about actual accountability or working constructively for the best outcome of the whole country. National seem to only be focused on petty politics focusing and exposing wedge issues.

100%

Its hard to imagine if National governed, that they would set up an accountability committee led by Labour and based mainly with Labour people. Never happen. Some took this response as All of Government joint effort, some don't. That just one example of attitude, and the lack of it.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2479797 9-May-2020 15:32

Ge0rge: I'm not sure why there appears to be so much venom or indeed even 'sides' in this thread - surely it's not unreasonable to expect a government to both work quickly in the best interests of the people _and_ do so within the law?

The thread has become fairly daft. We're still in the phase where anyone who questions any element of the government's response is a hater or favouring the economy over lives (I still can't see where that one came from).

I particularly enjoyed being accused of being on the "side" of national. That just made me giggle.

There are some significant questions to be asked but it's pretty clear that this thread isn't ready for them yet.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41071

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2479810 9-May-2020 16:17

As I said a few times - wait until the High Court issues a ruling, then discuss. Before that... It's pointless.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2479958 9-May-2020 21:10

Handle9:
Ge0rge: I'm not sure why there appears to be so much venom or indeed even 'sides' in this thread - surely it's not unreasonable to expect a government to both work quickly in the best interests of the people _and_ do so within the law?

The thread has become fairly daft. We're still in the phase where anyone who questions any element of the government's response is a hater or favouring the economy over lives (I still can't see where that one came from).

I particularly enjoyed being accused of being on the "side" of national. That just made me giggle.

There are some significant questions to be asked but it's pretty clear that this thread isn't ready for them yet.

To say that the Government acted outside the law and should have changed the law before acting is most definitely favouring policy vs lives as either of you have even bothered to answer the question which has been asked to both of you multiple times.

If you had to choose ONE of the below, which would you choose?

A: Changing the laws to reflect what was required with the extremely high potential for more deaths and infection and greater impact to the country.

B: Acting decisively and locking the country down before things get out of control.

Remember you can ONLY CHOOSE ONE... Not both as during a pandemic you don't have that luxury.

So @mdooher AND @Ge0rge which ONE do you choose? A OR B, as both isn't an option.

And if you want to focus on asking the questions worth asking then I have a few:

- What will the govt do if there is no herd immunity / vaccine on the horizon / no peer tested therapeutics that are proven effective?

- Should rest homes be locked down indefinitely as they realistically are the most vulnerable members of our society?

- What is the actual level of testing as I assume we are re-testing health workers etc as that should be reported alongside the total as that represents the true percentage of the population?

- What in-confidence communication was made to the opposition? They have made a number of public statements a few days before the government released their policy, so I have no doubt that National leaked information about decisions they knew were already underway just to score political points.

Those are the questions worth asking rather this BS over if the government over-reacted or acted too soon or not soon enough or that it wasn't legal.

In my view there should be no question it has helped save a lot of lives AND the economy so whatever it took to get there is all good with me.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2480055 10-May-2020 02:48

What on earth are you on about? I had assumed that you had read the thread but perhaps not.

Your question has been answered already. I have no idea where you have gotten all the other claptrap from, it's gotten really very silly, with you creating straw men all over the show.

Enjoy yourself, I see no further value in this thread with your off topic shouting.

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2480080 10-May-2020 08:11

Handle9:

What on earth are you on about? I had assumed that you had read the thread but perhaps not.

Your question has been answered already. I have no idea where you have gotten all the other claptrap from, it's gotten really very silly, with you creating straw men all over the show.

Enjoy yourself, I see no further value in this thread with your off topic shouting.

Apologies I mistakenly tagged you instead of @mdooher

I agree there are questions to ask but in my view the legality of the lockdown and if laws weren't properly changed to make the pandemic controls legal isn't one of them.

It's is @mdooher who has not answered the question. Or answered it saying that he prefers following / changing the law even if it had a far worse outcome for the country.

To me that view is abhorrent, as I could have very easily seen if Parliament had spent two weeks drafting and debating the necessary law changes this country would be following the trajectory many other western 1st world countries are following now.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2480093 10-May-2020 09:17

BarTender:

To me that view is abhorrent, as I could have very easily seen if Parliament had spent two weeks drafting and debating the necessary law changes this country would be following the trajectory many other western 1st world countries are following now.

This sort of stuff can be done under urgency. In fact, given some of the cynical reasons for urgency in the last twenty years, this is pretty much the exact thing urgency could and should be used for.

I think the legality is important given the over-arching effect of the lockdown on many things we acknowledge as being basic human rights. I know you can legislate over the top of BORA but if we get to a stage where Governments don't even need to use laws to set these things aside then we are setting ourselves up for a massive potential abuse of power without any real consequence. And personally, I believe Governments of any kind shouldn't get to pick and choose what rules they follow.

However, I'd rather see the whole-of-government response dealt with at a Royal Commission level, given the scale of the response and the impact. Makes no sense to have a dozen different ministries all trying to decide what could have been done better when they're all linked.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 18

For the first time in history, the government closes the country's borders to all but New Zealand citizens and permanent residents. https://shorthand.radionz.co.nz/coronavirus-timeline/

For the first time in history, the government closes the country's borders to all but New Zealand citizens and permanent residents. https://shorthand.radionz.co.nz/coronavirus-timeline/

For the first time in history, the government closes the country's borders to all but New Zealand citizens and permanent residents.

https://shorthand.radionz.co.nz/coronavirus-timeline/

For the first time in history, the government closes the country's borders to all but New Zealand citizens and permanent residents.

https://shorthand.radionz.co.nz/coronavirus-timeline/