There are plenty of 'Qs' but not many 'As' from Andrews or his incompetent Health Minister.

Possible unintended consequences of proposed new laws should be carefully considered. Sometimes one of these is "How could your worst enemy use this law? I remember this being pointed out long ago by a Victorian National Party MP regarding how the then Labor government had used a law enacted by the previous Liberal administration to excess in ways it had not considered. Seems would be very appropriate if at next election the Coalition comes to power in Victoria for concerted efforts at charging Daniel Andrews using the draconian industrial manslaughter law enacted under his leadership.

Is there any wonder there's such a culture of responsibility avoidance when the statutes are so full of harsh penalties?

Makes it hard to ever get to the truth of happenings.

As there is a State of Emergency declared, a complete new set of laws
is in effect.
Forget what you are saying about the normally existing laws.
In a State of Emergency the Emergency Commander is God.
He can make decisions on who can go where and why.
If he says a group of people must be isolated, then they will be.
Obviously the government influences his decisions, but ultimately it is his decision.
How the normal laws are superseded by the Emergency Management Act or
whatever they call it in Victoria I am not sure, I never had it clarified in NSW.

The author asks some complex questions about who to blame

but they turn out to be merely rhetorical questions to support his leanings

because he squarely blames "Victorian socialists".

This rant is exactly the kind of rubbish that the Australian edition of the UK based Spectator Magazine specializes in. Mostly an exercise in straw-man arguments.