Australian Reports of the Virus Spread

[RAM]

Don't forget the Royalties WA collects (and keeps) from mining in WA - HUGE! Iron ore prices at record levers due to China demand for its recovery and limits on supply from Brazil. That income has insulated the state budget from the economic effects of the virus and allowed then to keep their borders shut.

However on the flip side - over 70% of all GST revenue generated in WA goes to the rest of Australia. So WA hard border closure had double benefits - GST money flowed thru the borders & money that would have been spent in WA by rest of OZ tourists got spent or saved = improving rest of Australian economy. Win win in economic terms.

With the mining royalties, don't forget NSW profits handsomely as was the headline news in Sydney last night on the coal royalties.

BTW - not record iron ore prices, high yes, record not yet.



If the 'vaccine' wars get worse then that does not bode well for world trade as the EU's overnight precedent with blocking any vaccine delivery to Northern Ireland (hypocracy given the EU's Brexit stance against UK) & blocking vaccine exports from EU plants.

Crazy times.

 

[jb747]

Don't buy the media spin (coming from...hmm I wonder where) that the Pfizer vaccine is the "gold standard"

I thought it was the blue standard.

 

[Must...Fly!]

If the 'vaccine' wars get worse then that does not bode well for world trade as the EU's overnight precedent with blocking any vaccine delivery to Northern Ireland (hypocracy given the EU's Brexit stance against UK) & blocking vaccine exports from EU plants.

Crazy times.

They just walked back from that stance about half an hour ago

 

[jb747]

No wonder Victorians are wary about doing anything. This is the current headline from the BorderMail (Albury/Wodonga).

Checkpoints on NSW Victorian border end, but Victoria Police and government give no announcements​

So, are they gone? Not gone? Having a holiday for the weekend?

I guess that if you don't announce the removal, then you can slam them back with zero warning.

 

[jakeseven7]

WA set to reopen border to QLD

WA is on track to resume quarantine-free travel from Queensland next week, according to Premier Mark McGowan.

www.google.com

No word on Victoria

Seriously?

VIC will be opened and announced separately.

Media 101 - WA wants two TV appearances to get on the news not blow it all in one

Don’t worry it will happen, they are just trying to stay relevant and super tough men in the lead up to March.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

No wonder Victorians are wary about doing anything. This is the current headline from the BorderMail (Albury/Wodonga).

Checkpoints on NSW Victorian border end, but Victoria Police and government give no announcements​

So, are they gone? Not gone? Having a holiday for the weekend?

I guess that if you don't announce the removal, then you can slam them back with zero warning.

On the local (Vic) news last night the Premier said all of NSW is green with the exception of one orange LGA. You still need a permit to cross the border.

Post automatically merged: Jan 30, 2021

With the election coming, a closed border has never been more critical to McGowans chances of re-election.

This narrative would not be out of place in Belarus.

Why is our constitution allowed to be stamped on by elected officials.

Another zero case day for Victoria

Or it could go the other way, if voters don't agree.

The states are acting within the Constitution. The issue seems to be that most people don't understand the Constitution, or how it works.

 

[RAM]

Your assertion is nothing but speculation. Correlation does not imply causation and frankly even if (IF) one vaccine caused this problem then it is just as likely another did too.

Don't buy the media spin (coming from...hmm I wonder where) that the Pfizer vaccine is the "gold standard"

Did not say it implies causation but to just disregard the possibility is equally invalid.

One of the reasons past coronavirus vaccines failed was due to their side effects being worse than the benefits.

And no, I don't buy the media spin as the media spin can be bought by the Big Pharma companies & their paid servants across the spectrum including researchers, professors, doctors etc. Only when they go a little too far & get some serious adverse publicity do the politicans/bureaucrats seem to respond.

The history of the Tobacco companies & their paid stooges stands as a perfect example of how money overcomes any ethical concerns for too many experts & politicians.

I've posted this link before (nearly all pharmaceutical companies listed unfortunately) which only covers the fines/criminal sanctions since 2000.

Happy to say that since 2000 the old Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (now known as CSL) has only had a small < $100,000 fine for breaching environmental requirements.

pfizer | Violation Tracker

Violation Tracker, produced by the Corporate Research Project of Good Jobs First, is a wide-ranging database on misconduct by large and small corporations throughout the United States.

violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org

For Pfizer: USD 4.7 billion just since 2000.

So no, I don't blindly trust any pharma claims, and would hope that more people start to question a little more instead of trusting. That's what uncovered the Risperidone issue here in Australian nursing homes.

 

[Must...Fly!]

The states are acting within the Constitution. The issue seems to be that most people don't understand the Constitution, or how it works.

I would disagree with that quite strongly in ways that are both beneficial and detrimental to the general community at large. But I guess that's why we have these problems.

 

[zenyattamondatta]

With regard to the reported Novavax and J&J efficacy results, conspiracy conspiracy mumbo jumbo toil and trouble.

In saying this I refer at tedious length to some study that I can't possibly provide a link for, but oh, I believe it was published some time in the past two decades and if I recall correctly it said blah blah blah. Plus of course my own communications with famous people who are always keen to keep me (and me alone) in the loop.

So there.

 

[jb747]

On the local (Vic) news last night the Premier said all of NSW is green with the exception of one orange LGA. You still need a permit to cross the border.

I guess you don't live on the border. The police have apparently stopped checking vehicles, and had their pictures taken with the 'last' one through.

I never needed a permit, as I'm a border resident. But I hated the way the checkpoints added hugely, and unpredictably, to travel times. Killed local businesses. And divided a city that is normally only nominally in two states. The option existed for the border closures to be done in such a way that the city wouldn't be divided, and that would have have minimal impact on the people who live there, but neither the Victorian nor NSW authorities chose that route. In both cases they chose the maximum impact, and in the case of the Victorians, added immensely to the inconvenience by forcing all traffic down to single lanes, on the same road that the NSW police had used three. The traffic jam was over the border, so I guess it wasn't their problem.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

I would disagree with that quite strongly in ways that are both beneficial and detrimental to the general community at large. But I guess that's why we have these problems.

Well you can disagree quite strongly and that’s your ‘right’. But unfortunately the High Court seemingly ruled allowing border closures at this time.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Zero local new cases around the country ... Vic Qld NSW...

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I guess you don't live on the border. The police have apparently stopped checking vehicles, and had their pictures taken with the 'last' one through.

I never needed a permit, as I'm a border resident. But I hated the way the checkpoints added hugely, and unpredictably, to travel times. Killed local businesses. And divided a city that is normally only nominally in two states. The option existed for the border closures to be done in such a way that the city wouldn't be divided, and that would have have minimal impact on the people who live there, but neither the Victorian nor NSW authorities chose that route. In both cases they chose the maximum impact, and in the case of the Victorians, added immensely to the inconvenience by forcing all traffic down to single lanes, on the same road that the NSW police had used three. The traffic jam was over the border, so I guess it wasn't their problem.

I understand there are permit exemptions for the 'border bubble' or whatever it was called. I'm just not sure of the headline saying there was no communication. It was on the news last night.

Post automatically merged: Jan 30, 2021

I would disagree with that quite strongly in ways that are both beneficial and detrimental to the general community at large. But I guess that's why we have these problems.

I agree some people don't like what they see, but that doesn't mean the states are acting unconstitutionally.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Well you can disagree quite strongly and that’s your ‘right’. But unfortunately the High Court seemingly ruled allowing border closures at this time.

We still don't have the full reasoning though. How long is reasonable to apply border controls? How long is reasonable to extend states of emergency which give significant extra powers to state governments?

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

We still don't have the full reasoning though. How long is reasonable to apply border controls? How long is reasonable to extend states of emergency which give significant extra powers to state governments?

My guess is that they will avoid broad general statements and try to be specific when making their written judgment(s).....just focus on Mr Palmer’s situation.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

How long is reasonable to extend states of emergency which give significant extra powers to state governments?

I don't believe that's a constitutional issue! (at least in terms of the Federal Constitution). Declarations of states of emergency are done under state powers, and the basic requirement is generally an actual or imminent threat. States of emergency are usually for limited periods of time, and can be extended. A challenge would usually be at a state level.

 

[Must...Fly!]

I don't believe that's a constitutional issue! (at least in terms of the Federal Constitution). Declarations of states of emergency are done under state powers, and the basic requirement is generally an actual or imminent threat. States of emergency are usually for limited periods of time, and can be extended. A challenge would usually be at a state level.

Yes but they are not exempt from the provisions in the Australian constitution. The High Court agreed to hear the challenges and therefore they believe it is within their remit.

 

[Must...Fly!]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1355329296781328386

@jakeseven7 on the money.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yes but they are not exempt from the provisions in the Australian constitution. The High Court agreed to hear the challenges and therefore they believe it is within their remit.

The HC agreed to hear a case where it was alleged there was an action inconsistent with the Constitution. The Federal Constitution does not address the issue of declarations of states of emergency by states. The HC would only hear something if the outcome of the declared state of emergency somehow impinged on something else covered by the Constitution, for example border closures and the fair and free movement between states. And even then, it would only be on the part that impinged the Constitution.

'How long can a state declare an emergency' and 'how long can a state declare an emergency and give itself extra powers' is probably not an issue for the HC (unless it gets there via something else in the Constitution, or on appeal).

 

[Must...Fly!]

The HC agreed to hear a case where it was alleged there was an action inconsistent with the Constitution. The Federal Constitution does not address the issue of declarations of states of emergency by states. The HC would only hear something if the outcome of the declared state of emergency somehow impinged on something else covered by the Constitution, for example border closures and the fair and free movement between states. And even then, it would only be on the part that impinged the Constitution.

'How long can a state declare an emergency' and 'how long can a state declare an emergency and give itself extra powers' is probably not an issue for the HC (unless it gets there via something else in the Constitution, or on appeal).

Well yes the point is the state of emergency isn't there for show, I am not debating the existence of the legislation, but the effect of it. There are numerous actions it permits state governments to undertake, some of which (as demonstrated by the hearing of Palmer's case) could be seen as infringing on one's constitutional rights.