Australian state border restrictions

[antycbr]

It depends on whether the High Court agrees to expedite hearing the case, I guess.

This matter would get expedited, particularly if an interested state (cough, cough, NSW) joined the action.

 

[Doctore1003]

It depends on whether the High Court agrees to expedite hearing the case, I guess.

I would imagine the HC would want the Federal Court to assess the facts (including expert medical advice), just like last time - which would take a while.

 

[antycbr]

I would imagine the HC would want the Federal Court to assess the facts (including expert medical advice), just like last time - which would take a while.

That would be interesting in and of itself.

WA would have to argue, in court, why their health system is unable/incapable of dealing with Covid, after 18 months to prepare, therefore requiring the ongoing interruption of s.92 rights for all Australians to enter Western Australia.

They would also have to potentially argue that vaccines are not effective, and justify their low vaccination rates.

Meanwhile, Queensland effectively wants to be bribed to reopen (from The Australian's live blog)

Queensland will not reopen its border to New South Wales, the ACT and Victoria until there is a “big injection of funds from the federal government” to improve the state’s hospital capacity

 

[Eastwick20]

The airlines, hotel industry association, tourism bodies should have more sway than a travel agency which few people use.

Flight centre will have nothing to sell if there aren't flights to take, hotels to stay in, tour to do etc

As someone who works for another travel company the less said about Flight Centre and their practices the better, however that being said we as a industry should all be joining and helping F.C with this one

 

[jakeseven7]

That would be interesting in and of itself.

WA would have to argue, in court, why their health system is unable/incapable of dealing with Covid, after 18 months to prepare, therefore requiring the ongoing interruption of s.92 rights for all Australians to enter Western Australia.

They would also have to potentially argue that vaccines are not effective, and justify their low vaccination rates.

It would be disastrous and highly embarrassing for WA and their Premier. It would lay bare the compete failings of their state govenmernt very very publicly.

I think they (WA, QLD) will probably do anything to avoid it.

 

[Doctore1003]

I’m in WA and desperate to travel, but looking at this objectively, McGowan said the border will reopen once we get to high vax rates, which look achievable in the coming months. No court is going to deem that unreasonable.

The legal route is only viable if he doesn’t follow through and sets a ridiculous target.

I suspect this legal threat is more intended to create pressure and publicity.

 

[jase05]

I’m in WA and desperate to travel, but looking at this objectively, McGowan said the border will reopen once we get to high vax rates, which look achievable in the coming months. No court is going to deem that unreasonable.

The legal route is only viable if he doesn’t follow through and sets a ridiculous target.

I suspect this legal threat is more intended to create pressure and publicity.

The WA Premier said the border would not immediately open to NSW and Victoria once vaccination targets were achieved.

"What we have said is between 80-90 per cent and at that point in time we would set a date," he said.

"That may be two months from then."

He has said numerous times that it won’t be this year

 

[antycbr]

I’m in WA and desperate to travel, but looking at this objectively, McGowan said the border will reopen once we get to high vax rates, which look achievable in the coming months. No court is going to deem that unreasonable.

The legal route is only viable if he doesn’t follow through and sets a ridiculous target.

I suspect this legal threat is more intended to create pressure and publicity.

Then it has done its job. I don’t expect this to get to court for a whole host of reasons that the WA Government would like to avoid.

Meanwhile, opening international applies a blowtorch to covid zero states. It’s hugely unpopular for their residents all of a sudden as they realise they’ll be locked in.

 

[Doctore1003]

The WA Premier said the border would not immediately open to NSW and Victoria once vaccination targets were achieved.

"What we have said is between 80-90 per cent and at that point in time we would set a date," he said.

"That may be two months from then."

He has said numerous times that it won’t be this year

Again - this is not unreasonable from a legal point of view.

 

[antycbr]

Again - this is not unreasonable from a legal point of view.

The problem with this approach is that it does not consider proportionality, nor show that the state is making its best endeavours to minimise the harm to others from the slow pace vaccination rollout. The suspension of s.92 should be for the shortest duration possible to achieve the outcome.

A better approach would be to set an either/or condition - which is we open when the vaccination rate is at X%, or at date Y, whichever happens first. Otherwise WA will be waiting for stragglers.

 

[drron]

Again - this is not unreasonable from a legal point of view.

But if on 17/11 the Commonwealth rescinds the Emergency Declaration under the Biosecurity Act that must materially weaken the States stance on borders.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Otherwise WA will be waiting for stragglers.

Which is entirely the goal due to the state of the hospital system in WA

 

[Doctore1003]

I had hoped the High Court would take a tougher line but the Palmer case showed it won’t undermine public health decisions except in perhaps very exceptional circumstances.

 

[antycbr]

I had hoped the High Court would take a tougher line but the Palmer case showed it won’t undermine public health decisions except in perhaps very exceptional circumstances.

That was the line in 2020. You really must read the judgement to understand how qualified them suspending s.92 was.

From an analysis in today's Australian:

Critical to the High Court’s reasoning in the Palmer case were “uncertainties about the level of risk”. Chief Justice Kiefel and Justice Keane endorsed WA’s position with a powerful and prescient statement of the court’s reasoning: “There is no known vaccine, and no treatment presently available to mitigate the risks of severe medical outcomes or mortality for a person who contracts Covid-19.” The question is this: did the High Court deliberately leave the door open to a future challenge as soon as a vaccine was rolled out and other treatments approved?

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

 

[jakeseven7]

That was the line in 2020. You really must read the judgement to understand how qualified them suspending s.92 was.

From an analysis in today's Australian:

Critical to the High Court’s reasoning in the Palmer case were “uncertainties about the level of risk”. Chief Justice Kiefel and Justice Keane endorsed WA’s position with a powerful and prescient statement of the court’s reasoning: “There is no known vaccine, and no treatment presently available to mitigate the risks of severe medical outcomes or mortality for a person who contracts Covid-19.” The question is this: did the High Court deliberately leave the door open to a future challenge as soon as a vaccine was rolled out and other treatments approved?

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

Yes and thankfully a majority of all that is now completely irrelevant and recent history. So the attention would then be turned on why a state hasn’t bothered vaccinating their population or funding their health systems which is not an excuse that would hold up I expect.

 

[Lynda2475]

But if on 17/11 the Commonwealth rescinds the Emergency Declaration under the Biosecurity Act that must materially weaken the States stance on borders.

They will need to rescind that earlier given NSW can travel internationally form 1st November, given we will hit 80% double vaxed along with the ACT 4 weeks before then.

 

[exceladdict]

Which is entirely the goal due to the state of the hospital system in WA

This has been going on for decades across multiple governments. One only hopes this is the thing that triggers some actual improvements.

As to the other matter, I think a better chance of getting heard by the high court would be a collection of, or class action, of WA residents locked out by border rules.

 

[Must...Fly!]

This has been going on for decades across multiple governments. One only hopes this is the thing that triggers some actual improvements.

As to the other matter, I think a better chance of getting heard by the high court would be a collection of, or class action, of WA residents locked out by border rules.

Surely the court decides on the merit of the case put before it and not those arguing it.

 

[exceladdict]

Surely the court decides on the merit of the case put before it and not those arguing it.

I was thinking there would be some nuances between:
"The entire border closure is unconstitutional because it impacts my business"
"The border closure is discriminatory because I want to get in and cannot"
"The border closure is overly heavy-handed because I am prohibited from returning to my usual place of residence"

Especially when the last is subject to somewhat more subjective exceptions, i.e. football players.

 

[Ric]

View attachment 260505
Not sure what you will be doing in Melbourne but I don’t think a transit permit is appropriate? You are only allowed to go to accomodation and buy food whilst “transiting“

Thank you @MelMel. Yes I have seen that page and subsequent pages. In the application for permit it does ask you for the place and or person to see in Melbourne. I have an appointment with an overseas country's High Commission so it's an in out situation.

I may have to try to ring the appropriate depts which will be all recorded answers