What a buzz kill. What's the point of a rumour network if there's pre-reading involved?

But what was claimed above was that he doesn't follow the terms of the current agreements.

My question remains "what has he done that contravenes current agreements"?

Pedantic, but you mean - The current step in the agreement - Fair enough, I didn't read that many posts back. . Though one could argue you don't 'Accelerate National Vaccination Rates' by saying you'll be staying shut at the agreed vaccination targets anyway, or by telling your citizens life here is normal (mine certainly isn't, and I'm not the only one by a long shot), if I'm going to draw a longish bow and again be pedantic!

However, He has telegraphed that he has every intention not to follow the later steps as he sees fit. The steps, and yes I have read them, are actually very conservative and very well thought out. No, there is no 'Freedom Day', but there is also no "zero Cases, Zero deaths', anywhere. There is a reason it's not there. It just won't be possible to maintain. There is also a reason that he'll try it on, the public hospitals here are a complete and utter disaster zone and it will take them YEARS to fix the mess. And it absolutely won't be fixed with the current Health Minister in place, who I wouldn't trust to tie a shoelace.

I'm amazed at how some of you guys interpret the written word, If it makes any difference about percentages, we in WA already have about 70% registered for their jab and no hope in hell of getting all of us that wants it, jabbed with two doses this year. We will continue to maintain zero covid until they are, then the health system has to be ready for rising cases, before any discussion will be entered into regarding open borders date. I can't make it any clearer than that.

A long and very enjoyable belly laugh for me, CS.

Thanks!

But back to matters serious, how can these be reconciled:It's the border closure you have when you don't want to close your borders.

And there is the problem right there. You seem to think you can't handle it. Maybe you're right. Then again - your CHO - Andy Robertson, testified in Clive's original s.92 case that the WA health system is capable of handling 5,000 active Covid cases, with, IIRC, 500 in ICU at any one time - and that was a year ago! So what's changed that you now cannot handle it?

If the WA health system can't handle a few thousand cases, with maybe 5% of those in hospital, you've got bigger problems than Covid...Though, if reports of WA hospitals having to ramp ambulances for many hours at a time are indeed accurate, then maybe you do!

We're not the one's reading PerthNow where McGowan proudly proclaimed:
Now, maybe I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but...the only way I can see this occurring - The only way - is if he continues on his current crusade of border restrictions a'la John Howard and his boat people "We vill dezide who comes into our state and ze manner in vich zey come!"

Last I checked, Zero Covid was not mentioned anywhere in the Doherty modelling or the 4-stage roadmap - and present evidence of multiple overseas jurisdictions demonstrates it is an unattainable goal, no matter your Countries' vaccination level! That being the case, for how long are Australian Citizens expected to be denied their constitutional right to travel to WA without being penalised because of the state in which they live?

Stated specifically that even at 80% he may keep the hard border up to NSW!

The muppet can keep the ‘hard border’ up for as long as wants. Once everyone else opens up to each other and Covid is everywhere there will be no stopping it from entering WA. There are 100s of truck drivers crossing the border everyday and numerous Facebook pages with hints and tips on how to get into WA undetected (plenty of bush tracks).

Lets hope WA police are checking those face book pages.

As long as the WA government can prove there is a threat to public health restriction of movement is perfectly legal. If you can prove otherwise you can force them to allow freedom of movement. International law on human rights and our constitution allows restriction of movement for public health, public order or to protect others rights. No point quoting constitutional rights if they don't apply in current circumstance. It does not even have to be a public health emergency, that just makes the case stronger for the rules.

That's why the protesters are double morons, if they create civil disorder they give the state further power to restrict movement.

We know it will come into the state, we know we will have to live with it, we must maintain zero until the state is ready, it won't be this year. The Premier is entitled to stick it up the liberals any way he likes, it won't change the plan.

A state of emergency must be declared, it's not forever and we don't want it to be forever, nor will it be.

The states rules require that, not the general human rights we are signed up to.

and there’s the problem. The fool is so focussed on political posturing. If federal labor were in, there’s no way he’d be such a recalcitrant prick. Each way albo even says he supports the reopening plan. Mcgoose will just change the ‘best health advice’ to suit his political agenda.

you don’t need to be clear. You will have as much say in what happens with the borders as I do.

Here’s an example of where the media twists a quote to get a headline where the real quote wasn’t exactly what was said:

“If you imagine we get to 80 per cent vaccination, and Aboriginal communities, remote communities, some country towns are at much lower levels, we may have to lock those down at some point in time for whatever reason – I think that makes total sense and that was what was agreed,” Mr McGowan said.

“I’m just keen to have minimal or no COVID”

So a lot of nuance and media putting their own spin on quotes - not a “zero Covid policy and No cases or deaths”, just “keen to have minimal or no Covid”.

Not full lockdowns at 80%, targeted lockdowns for specific areas like indigenous communities.

And nowhere had the cabinet agreed to a plan where Australia “opens up” at 80%, we move to Phase C at 80% which still involves some restrictions, Phase D is more open but still there’s some countermeasures.

Everything isn’t going back to normal the day we hit 80%, it’ll be better but it’ll also be gradual and phased.

The Australian Constitution is largely silent on the matter of restrictions of movement, save for s 92.

Yep, all correct as far as I can see, why is it people turn it into something it isn't, Is it desperation driven.

Correct - as the agreement allows.

I am amazed that, while NSW festers, so many people are desperate to point out failings that they think they can see in WA and McGowan.

McGowan is also quoted saying:


What other conclusion are people supposed to make from that?