Predictions of when international flights may resume/bans lifted

[MEL_Traveller]

So what you are saying is that the States should have appealed to the High Court to close their borders as the constitution says they should remain open to all Australian citizens.I would agree with that.
Your statement that i replied to was this.

So what evidence do the State Premiers quote when defending the border closures- expert health advice.So an epidemiologist is such an expert.
And once again the advice of the Commonwealth,NSW and Victorian health officials has been don't close the State borders.

Besides the matter is with the High court and will be decided on both the law and the health evidence.

The matter is with the high court. Have they actually said the issue will be decided on health evidence? It may not even get to that. It could be as simple as ‘is there a valid state of emergency in existence?’ If yes, then the border closure is not unconstitutional.

Delving into the decision making of each state cabinet may not be something the courts want to get in to.

State premiers don’t need to rely on advice from a doctor. They can look at it from a policy and operational angle. What is happening at a federal level (forced quarantine, citizens banned from leaving). They could look at what’s happened in other countries. The epidemiologist may provide input, but decisions of cabinet or the executive branch aren't required to be based on a single source.

 

[drron]

Except the cases that have allowed Section 92 to be put aside have been for a Public health emergency.I don't see how you can have that without some health advice.
Section 92 has no effect on our National border and what happens in other countries is basically irrelevant.

 

[Pushka]

Good heavens! Since when is an epidemiologist an expert in law? Or public policy? They may be a subject matter expert, but can they see the bigger picture?

Ah, they are experts in infectious and other disease measurements and it is they who are helping to guide public policy right now.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Except the cases that have allowed Section 92 to be put aside have been for a Public health emergency.I don't see how you can have that without some health advice.
Section 92 has no effect on our National border and what happens in other countries is basically irrelevant.

There can be an assumption that if you have a declared state of emergency on health grounds, that there must be evidence to support that. One argument could be that you do not actually need to look at the specific underlying evidence, or daily medial opinion. You just look at the overall state of emergency, which could be based on a number of sources and considerations, and balancing a number of factors. If the High Court is going to look at daily medical evidence, the next logical argiment is that the declared states of emergency themselves might also be invalidated at the state level, based on the HC findings. I don't think that is a situation the HC would want to put itself in?

Ah, they are experts in infectious and other disease measurements and it is they who are helping to guide public policy right now.

The operative word being 'guide'. They are one consideration, and not necessarily reflective of how people actually deal with the virus in the real world. It's fine to say we should open borders and quarantine those with the virus... but that doesn't allow for those doing the wrong thing and breaking quarantine, or refusing tests, or travelling on fast food runs, or travelling interstate when sick.

 

[Pushka]

The operative word being 'guide'. They are one consideration, and not necessarily reflective of how people actually deal with the virus in the real world. It's fine to say we should open borders and quarantine those with the virus... but that doesn't allow for those doing the wrong thing and breaking quarantine, or refusing tests, or travelling on fast food runs, or travelling interstate when sick.

To implement policies to deal with the 1% of idiots is not a world capable of sustaining itself for more than a short period.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

To implement policies to deal with the 1% of idiots is not a world capable of sustaining itself for more than a short period.

Unfortunately many of our laws - even the long term ones - are based on the 1%.

 

[drron]

I really doubt the High Court would assume anything as being correct just because it exists.
You are getting desperate now.
The lawyers for CP and the Commonwealth I am sure are going to provide evidence from health professionals when arguing against the State border closures.I believe though that will be in the Federal Court but as part of the case lodged by CP.

 

[Pushka]

Unfortunately many of our laws - even the long term ones - are based on the 1%.

Yes but the current restrictions arent simple "don't do this" kind of stuff but are restricting free flow of people and goods across a Commonwealth. Designed for emergency use only. It is untenable for a democratic society to have the Police in control of the State and what needs to be determined is when the initial emergency has ended.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I really doubt the High Court would assume anything as being correct just because it exists.
You are getting desperate now.
The lawyers for CP and the Commonwealth I am sure are going to provide evidence from health professionals when arguing against the State border closures.I believe though that will be in the Federal Court but as part of the case lodged by CP.

You are essentially suggesting the High Court rule on the validity of the declared states of emergency, based solely on conflicting medical opinion? I don’t know whether they are willing to go that far.

 

[drron]

You are essentially suggesting the High Court rule on the validity of the declared states of emergency, based solely on conflicting medical opinion? I don’t know whether they are willing to go that far.

Of course I didn't say that health evidence is all of the case being presented but i still think it will be an important part especially the expert evidence of a few epidemiologists and virologists.though to make it Easier for the High court they have initially referred the case to the Federal court who will probably hear most of that evidence.

 

[jakeseven7]

Well, anyone with international flight aspirations has just been dealt another blow.

MEL (arriving international) shut and now NSW are no longer 100% confident that they can manage the quarantined passengers so have restricted incoming international flights to 50 per flight.... Which obviously pretty much forces all airlines to cancel / divert.

So now it’s up to BNE, ADL and PER to pick up the slack. Let’s see how that goes...

 

[Pushka]

Well, anyone with international flight aspirations has just been dealt another blow.

MEL shut and now NSW are no longer 100% confident that they can manage the quarantined passengers so have restricted incoming international flights to 50 per flight.... Which obviously pretty much forces all airlines to cancel / divert.

So now it’s up to BNE, ADL and PER to pick up the slack. Let’s see how that goes...

Is Mel shut? I thought that was a threat. Think it's time for the Federal Govt to sort some of this out. Adelaide doesn't have the hotel capacity. Although if spaced out it could likely handle 1000 a time which is about half of current intake as another flight arrived this morning into Adelaide from KL. And I reckon Perth won't play at all.

 

[trevella]

Good heavens! Since when is an epidemiologist an expert in law? Or public policy? They may be a subject matter expert, but can they see the bigger picture?

Since you brought expertise into it, what particular expertise do you bring to the table?

 

[jakeseven7]

Is Mel shut? I thought that was a threat. Think it's time for the Federal Govt to sort some of this out. Adelaide doesn't have the hotel capacity. Although if spaced out it could likely handle 1000 a time which is about half of current intake as another flight arrived this morning into Adelaide from KL. And I reckon Perth won't play at all.

MEL is to international arrivals yes.

 

[drron]

Divert them to BNE where they now have to pay for their quarantine.That probably will lessen demand.
And if MEL is shut and SYD limiting to 50 then the push for OS students should be canned at the present.

 

[p--and--t]

Is Mel shut? I thought that was a threat.

Announced a day or two ago. No more international into MEL for 14 days until they can sort out the hot suburbs and in the background resource and train to resolve the hotel quarantine debacle.

 

[jase05]

Divert them to BNE where they now have to pay for their quarantine.That probably will lessen demand.
And if MEL is shut and SYD limiting to 50 then the push for OS students should be canned at the present.

I hear Christmas Island is lovely this time of year, send them there if need be

 

[jakeseven7]

Divert them to BNE where they now have to pay for their quarantine.

BNE, PER and ADL should do some heavy lifting now me thinks

 

[PineappleSkip]

Is Mel shut? I thought that was a threat.

I saw Andrews in his press conference Tuesday say he was going to request Scomo for flights into MEL to be diverted elsewhere for a while. Didn't hear more.

MEL doesn't look shut to inbound international to me. FR24 lists UL, GA and CX flights arrived this morning, and QR expected this evening.

Cheers skip

 

[jase05]

BNE, PER and ADL should do some heavy lifting now me thinks

I think we would be happy to help out but we don’t have a huge hotel availability or capacity to take the members that MEL had.