State border closures illegal under the highest law in the country?

[bigbadbyrnes]

Everything is arguable in law, doubly so in constitutional law. This is a matter for the high court.

But here's my opening argument;

Section 92 of the highest law in the country sets out "On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free. "

Per Cole vs Whitfield 1988 "The notions of absolutely free trade and commerce and absolutely free intercourse are quite distinct". Sec92 clearly sets out the law for interstate trade, but also 'intercourse'.

And on the matter of what intercourse means, per Gratwick v Johnson 1945 it's the ability "to pass to and fro among the States without burden, hindrance or restriction".

Border closures, (and arguably although less certainly isolation requirements), are therefore inconsistent with the highest law in the country and should be set aside.

No one is talking about it, any legal eagles here explain? There's no room on the news for this at the moment, but if people start to fed up with the restrictions, it's worth getting them tested in the high court.

edit:

I think this analysis will answer all your questions: States are shutting their borders to stop coronavirus. Is that actually allowed?

Short version: if there are good public health grounds (for example states of emergency), those laws are likely to be held valid.

Could be worth testing if an individual could be proven to be not a thread to public health, but that would be the exception. Thanks MEL_Traveller for sharing the article.

/thread

 

[Steady]

I suggest you are expanding this into undiscussed areas. ProLife or not has nothing to do with this issue (on which of course we disagree but that’s irrelevant to the current discussion). Where did I say it was an issue for Scotty from Marketing? Just an issue with people of certain views and Murdock press blaming AP and labor bashing through fake news reports .
I assume you would like this in a different context.

You are correct that I was expanding into undiscussed areas, It astounds me that foetus and baby can be interchanged when it suits. I obviously should not air my medieval opinions.

Not sure where Scotty from marketing came from - your choice of spun. I just made a comment asking You if everything and anything was Scomos fault - as that is the impression I get from your posts, and that I think he is doing ok. You seemed to interpret my post to say it was His fault - to remove any attempted twist I dont.

 

[drron]

That's right. But you top and tailed the piece to include statements about the lockdown... that the lockdown was beneficial for the UK and that Taiwan didn't have a lockdown.

I wasn't seeing the connection between the rise in depression and lockdowns per se. Just generally related to covid.

An interesting lunch today with a friend who spent 3 weeks in Taiwan in March this year.Mask wearing was common in Taipei but certainly not everybody wearing one.Outside the capital she felt it was less than 50% wearing masks.
A couple of their restaurant meals were buffets.

 

[DC3]

From time to time I wonder if this thread is still “State border closures illegal under the highest law in the country?“.

 

[Spongbob]

From time to time I wonder if this thread is still “State border closures illegal under the highest law in the country?“.

I have noticed this also. The comments in this tread over the last few days are more about general COVID-19 issues than the lawfulness of interstate travel restrictions.

PS: 1000 messages!

 

[Must...Fly!]

What an interesting couple of pages to catch up on.

For me it's pretty simple. Political commentary and wrangling has confused clinicians and health administrators to the extent that the healthcare of an Australian citizen (in the pregnant woman case - but obviously many more as evidenced in this thread) has been heavily compromised.

It is no great leap to suggest said compromise is due to the rhetoric of state leaders and isolationist, protectionist speech. You need to stop pretending that clinicians and administrators are immune to the public words (or indeed vibe) of Premiers, because they are human just like the rest.

If this happened in non covid times to a pregnant woman traveling overseas due to wrangling over money between a travel insurance provider & hospital in say USA we would be slamming the insurer, slamming the hospital, and the lawyers would be lined up two-by-two down the street. I doubt such recourse is available here.

This poor woman has been to hell and back, and responsibility is fairly and squarely at the feet of those in Qld government who are confusing the administration of long established protocols and procedures with bizarre commentary & enforcement of a legally questionable border policy.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I have noticed this also. The comments in this tread over the last few days are more about general COVID-19 issues than the lawfulness of interstate travel restrictions.

PS: 1000 messages!

Congrats on the milestone!

It was probably a necessary discussion in the thread.

States are allowed to close their borders in certain circumstances, and response to a medical emergency is one of those circumstances.

The Federal Court found border closures are the best way to mitigate the medical risks. As this was a medical issue, the court did not consider economic arguments.

The discussion in the thread has explored whether economic grounds should outweigh health grounds. That might be something to consider at a state or national level in terms of lifting covid restrictions, but perhaps not relevant to the specific issue of whether states can legally close their borders?

 

[Must...Fly!]

To be accurate, the federal court offered an opinion that border closures were likely the more effective health measure but that the risk in some circumstances was extremely low (the inference presumably being that the closures are not universally appropriate)

The question as to whether it is legal or not is still very much an open one as the constitution has yet to be interpreted and a decision handed down by the high court.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Hard border: 'The walls close in' for West Australians on the wrong side of state's iron ore curtain

Caught on the wrong side of the state's 'hard border' these West Australians are angry, frustrated and abandoned. They're not high-flying business people or celebrities, they just want to come home.

www.watoday.com.au

 

[antycbr]

Hard border: 'The walls close in' for West Australians on the wrong side of state's iron ore curtain

Caught on the wrong side of the state's 'hard border' these West Australians are angry, frustrated and abandoned. They're not high-flying business people or celebrities, they just want to come home.

www.watoday.com.au

And unlike other people locked out, they get to vote in WA's election.

 

[jase05]

And unlike other people locked out, they get to vote in WA's election.

The majority of the 99% that are still in WA love McGowan though

 

[jakeseven7]

I think it's difficult to isolate the effects of the (enforced) shutdown and the broader disinclination to travel/invest in spite of the shutdowns.

For your business perhaps, not ours and many others like ours

 

[TheRealTMA]

This is a good development in the border closures.

"Ms Palaszczuk also announced a new unit would be set up within the Health Department, overseen by Chief Health Officer Dr Jeannette Young, to assist with the travel of New South Wales residents requiring medical treatment in Queensland.

"A hotline will be set up to make sure that we can coordinate with families in a timely manner," Ms Palaszczuk said."

New unit to oversee border travel as one new coronavirus case confirmed in Queensland

A new unit will be set up to oversee the travel between Queensland and New South Wales for residents seeking medical treatment as the state records one new case of coronavirus overnight.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Must...Fly!]

This is a good development in the border closures.

"Ms Palaszczuk also announced a new unit would be set up within the Health Department, overseen by Chief Health Officer Dr Jeannette Young, to assist with the travel of New South Wales residents requiring medical treatment in Queensland.

"A hotline will be set up to make sure that we can coordinate with families in a timely manner," Ms Palaszczuk said."

New unit to oversee border travel as one new coronavirus case confirmed in Queensland

A new unit will be set up to oversee the travel between Queensland and New South Wales for residents seeking medical treatment as the state records one new case of coronavirus overnight.

www.abc.net.au

This strikes me as a rather obvious admission of complicity.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

This strikes me as a rather obvious admission of complicity.

I dont.

I see it is the government taking action to make sure it doesn’t happen again. There was no rule preventing emergency care, but this will make it crystal clear for anyone who is still unsure.

 

[jakeseven7]

This is a good development in the border closures.

"Ms Palaszczuk also announced a new unit would be set up within the Health Department, overseen by Chief Health Officer Dr Jeannette Young, to assist with the travel of New South Wales residents requiring medical treatment in Queensland.

"A hotline will be set up to make sure that we can coordinate with families in a timely manner," Ms Palaszczuk said."

New unit to oversee border travel as one new coronavirus case confirmed in Queensland

A new unit will be set up to oversee the travel between Queensland and New South Wales for residents seeking medical treatment as the state records one new case of coronavirus overnight.

www.abc.net.au

How thoughtful and timely....

 

[tgh]

You could never in a thousand years guess that an election was imminent in Qld.
This will be another litmus test for the "electors are dills" camp ( currently occupied by labour but changeable… )

 

[drron]

It should have been done as soon as the hard border announcement was done.It is very common that people in northern NSW get treated in QLD hospital.Someone in the Health Dept should have advised the Minister.The CHO should also have realised this was needed.
They had np plan for what was inevitable.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

They had np plan for what was inevitable.

Unfortunately there have been no plans for a range of inevitable COVID related matters (I won’t be listing them to stay on topic).

It is a wonder what the public service departments are advising and how much heed is taken in the haze of a pandemic.

 

[Must...Fly!]

I dont.

I see it is the government taking action to make sure it doesn’t happen again. There was no rule preventing emergency care, but this will make it crystal clear for anyone who is still unsure.

So their own rhetoric meant that clinicians and administrators were unsure of their ability to organise and access care...

It's good they are fixing it but to claim they weren't a party to the problem is putting your head in the sand.

 

[serfty]

I see it is the government taking action to make sure it doesn’t happen again. There was no rule preventing emergency care, but this will make it crystal clear for anyone who is still unsure.

Shame they did not get the message out with such clarity in the first place.

hospitals for our people